Adam Smith commentary

Commentating is a proper job, Not something you can just retire into and steal a living.

A whole new clean slate is needed.

 

And Nicky Piper

 

Yep. I find it maddening that we're now at the stage where 'anyone' can get a commentating job if they have the right name.

There are so many qualities required for commentating. The right voice, a good vocabulary and turn of phrase, a deep knowledge of boxing and every division, a sense of timing and occasion, knowing when to speak and how to enhance the fights for the viewers.

The chances of an ex-boxer having all these qualities are very slim. As an example I'd say Froch has none of them.

 

Would love to see Mike Costello get the sky gig although would never happen

 

I think they're all basically hopeless and just tow the party line.
We simply need some unbiased knowledgeable people doing it, but Sky are too tied into some of the fighters.

 

Yeah that's one of many things that is irritating about Bellew. It even goes beyond that with Joshua, he sucks up to him really. Really low brow commentary.

You'd think there must be some sort of science behind it from Sky/MR's point of view. I think a bit thing for them is getting a 'narrative', which is why the commentary quality becomes even worse when the fight deviates from the narrative/goes off script and the Sky/MR backed fighter loses. Having commentators who heavily favour the Sky/MR fighter is an attempt to superficially influence the viewer to root for the Sky/MR fighter.

The target audience isn't really people on this forum, but people who take a more casual interest in the sport and probably favour Football as their number 1 sport. Having a few names that they've heard of (Bellew, Froch, Nelson) and who's opinion they respect is probably an attempt to get the viewer (who may not know that much about boxing) to go along with this narrative that Sky is trying to build up.

 

I don't even think a commentator should necessarily have a great knowledge of current boxers. I don't like all the background and biography and opinion and punditry. It's just drivel.
A commentator should just comment on the action in front of them, unbiased, and sparingly.

 

In most sports you usually get the main commentator like that, then an ex player who also commentators but is more like a co-commentator. They expand when required and add a bit more insight, be it tactics, what an opponent needs to change etc.

 

My preference would be a option where we can switch off all commentary but retain the sounds of the ring action and the arena.

 

There's absolutely method to their madness. They're a hugely succesful model. It's not the genuine boxing fans who bring in the big cash, it's the casuals. And their model is perfectly suited for the casuals.

It's just a pity the rest of us have to suffer because we can see what they're up to a mile away.

 

Exactly. Obviously Sky and Matchroom know exactly what they're doing when appealing to that audience with the Football and Darts etc. Even down to getting Buffer for the ring announcements; Sky know that almost everyone will associate 'let's get ready to rumble' with boxing.

I actually think some of their coverage is very good - I can't remember what it's called, but there's a segment where two of the summarisers (quite often Macklin) demonstrate the keys to victory and possible tactics boxers might use in the upcoming fight. That provides quite a nice top level summary.

I enjoyed Saturday's card and it's great to see a wider audience interested in a fight (Fitzgerald vs Fowler) that isn't a world title fight and features two upcoming British fighters.

 

I've said this before, I'm convinced somewhere that MR/Sky have a big folder of graphs and pie charts showing a correlation between the commentators hyping the **** out of a fighter in-fight and bigger muh numbers in subsequent fights. The change in the dynamic of commentary has changed so much it must be a demonstrable, evidence-based plus.

Hard to believe now but I can still remember fights when a fighter who was a heavy favourite and backed by the network lost and the commentators actually fairly reported it as a shock, derailment etc. Which let's be fair it usually is.

 

Yeah you're right, there has to be. Sky are too big and too successful in their markets for there not to be some sort of formula behind what they do.

I guess their ideal demographic for Boxing is the same as football - males aged 20-40, except boxing is probably their second or third sport, they chip in to watch PPVs with their friends and buy a takeaway/drinks (have you noticed how often that's referenced when Eddie Hearn discusses PPV prices), they have a reasonable knowledge of boxing and could name all of the big Matchroom fighters over the last few years but would need a bit of help with people like Usyk etc (hence why he's been pushed lots recently). The audience probably like to think they understand the sport more than they actually do.

It will be interesting to see who MR/Sky champion over the next few years now that lots of their fighters have retired at the same sort of time. Obviously Joshua of course. They're clearly trying with Buatsi (who I really rate) but he's a bit dull. I think they have high hopes for Fowler given his divisive personality as i'm sure they had a plan for his trajectory (they wouldn't have wanted that loss at all). Then there's the Dave Allen enigma - I suppose with a few winnable fights they could position him for a domestic title.

 

I agree with your point that people on this forum are not sky’s real target Audience but I still don’t understand why sky believe the masses need to see a woman asking the questions from a long line of ex fighters. It’s often embarrassing seeing them waiting to top what the last guy said. Often none of them can tell her anything that enlightening for the wider audience that might not know much about boxing.

If they are going to ask that many individuals why isn’t each one tasked with concentrating on separate aspects of technique before a fight rather than have them all talk about the same thing in response to the ending? Sky would be better off showing segments of footage demonstrating key tactical plans using their own extensive archive. It should be presented in the kind of high octane way the UFC were able to suck fans into that sport and educate them in an entertaining way. Each pundit could then lay down what they will be looking for Then after the fight each can talk about how their own specific aspects and can be asked if they were either successful or unsuccessful in the fight.

 

I'd be happy for it to be :

1 bog-standard commentator with a broadcasting background , no ego, and a good ability to highlight some of the action sparingly

+
1 likeable (perferably humble or at least no egomaniac) ex-fighter who might add some insight and anecdotes now and then

+
(for big events)
1 guest celebrity, but someone with class, like Idris Elba ... or Prince Harry or someone .... Judi Dench maybe


No studio pundits, no presetner, no line-up of idiots who boxed or didn't. No stupid over-the-top company line agenda. Cut out all that crap.