Is it me or do British commentators have a tendency to be overly-negative and see fights going against our fighters? Jim Watt on Sky Box Office had Valuev winning last night. Primetime had Dirrell winning against Carl Froch. Setanta had Hopkins winning against Calzaghe. In all these instances, the British analyists were of the opinion that our fighters had not done enough to take the points victory, that they simply had not landed enough clean shots to take rounds. Why is that? Are we simply a negative bunch? :huh
Good question. I think that they only watch one fighter, the British one, so have a tendancy, not intentional to not apply critical thought to what the other bloke os doing. Unless the British fighter is clearly winning then they can get a bit nervous hoping that they do more to dominate.
I was thinking the same. I actually gave up thinking about scores after about the 7th/8th because my scorecard was so different from Jim Watts. After 7 I had Haye 4-3 up or maybe even 5-2 up and I'm sure he had Haye 5-2 down. Valuev was barely landing. I can understand it was in Germany and he could have been scoring it as he thought Ferman judges would see it but for me that's not right.
There seems to be no consistency in their scoring either, it always seems to be overly-cautious towards the British fighter. In the Froch Dirrell fight, Froch did all the chasing and throwing clumsy combinations that mostly missed. The Primetime team was pretty sure that Froch had not done enough to take the points victory. Similarly, in the Haye Valuev fight last night, Valuev was in the Froch role of chasing and throwing clumsy combinations yet Jim Watt and all the SBO analyists had Valuev winning. I agree with Kid Lucky, t seems to be that they are overly-critical of the British fighter and generous to the other fighter. I think it must be a mentality thing.
Kid Lucky and UT7885 you are both spot on. I was thinking these exact things whilst listening to the commentary last night.
