We get quite a good mix of the two over here these days. To me the Americans (generally) seem to know there **** a bit better, pointing out wee things beforehand which you see unfold in a fight, and also picking up on things in the early rounds that make you say "**** he's right, if Mr A keeps ducking in like that then Mr B is gonna take him with the left hook". I also like the way they talk about "key weapons" all the time (just sounds cool). On the flip-side I feel they can end up talking a bit too much, as if it was radio commentary they were doing. The British commentators also appear to be a bit more plausible in their passion when things get exciting (some would say a bit too passionate when **** all has happened - I'm looking at you Rawlings). That could just be because I'm from this neck of the woods though. Which do you prefer? Any opinions?
Not that bothered. I like Woodhall but having Yank commentators can add to the 'Vegas' atmosphere of a big fight.
prefer the british commentary. american commentators just tend to read a fight and never give u any anecdotes like say darkey does.
I think Ian Darke is very good, as are the Sky team generally. The only downside to Sky is that they can appear to be 'cheerleader-like', though this could be levelled at ITV as well. John Rawling is very knowledgable, but he could get excited at the opening of an envelope - I think when Hatton KO'd Castillo the microphone was smashed into a million pieces and John went quiet.
I prefer the british because they seem to add more passion and drama to their commentaries. The americans always talk way too much and seem to enjoy talking with each other rather than watching the fight...Teddy Atlas never shuts up!
The British commentary is always biased in favour of the Brit. It's quite annoying for those of us who see boxing as an individual sport and don't automatically support guys just because they were born in the same country. I much prefer American commentary.
Favourite is Ian Darke with Glenn McCrory, probably because those were the two commentators whe i first got into the sport. johnny Nelson is also very good. Jim Watt is horrible and should never be allowed near a microphone. As for the American team, Kellerman and Merchant are terrible and always have been, neither have the voice or the personality for tv. Lampley though is one of my favs. ESPN joe Tessitore is top draw and Atlas gives good opinions on a fights outcome but cant help but think he doesnt really have the voice for a commentator. Id rather listen to American commentators at American fights when it is live, hate that over dubbed stuff that Sky do, its so obvious that they are sitting in a studio pretending who they are seeing at ringside, utter gayness, they usually get Adam Smith on those jobbies who is also annoying.
I much prefer the American commentary when watching British fighters because they tend to be more fairer and there's no bias. Jim Watt creaming himself over Ricky Hatton's very average performance against Lazcano was cringeworthy.
might get slatered for this but i prefer british because they show more enthusiam and passion in the sport IMO
Makes a change, Jim Watt normally goes against Hatton. If you never got to see Hatton fights and only had his commentary to go by, you'd think Hatton had at least 5 losses now. I like to listen to american commentary after one of our boys has beaten a yank/one of their favourites.
i like albert and bernstein on showtime. i like lampley and steward /merchant on hbo. i do not like sheridan/kellerman. dont like darke or mccrory. i like watt. reg gutteridge and harry carpenter pissed all over the current crop from the uk, with the exception of steve holdsworth. he goes off on tangents but i have always enjoyed him.
I have to mute the TV when these two are on. '******' has cannot commentate any fight without mentioning Ricky Hatton. He's not knowledgable and just cheerleads. Rd 8 of Hatton/mayweather, Mayweather is lighting him up like a Christmas tree, whats '******'s' expert take on events? "Mayweather must be thinking:what do i have to do to tame this Tiger!!!" :rofl Jim Watt repeats the same (obvious, boring) point ad nauseum. "His left hand's too low".
Rawlings is more of a football comentator. He fancys khan, u can hear him spitting **** out his mouth coz hes soo excited..
The HBO commentators are good apart from Kellermann who exaggerates a bit too much. I downloaded the HBO broadcast of Casamayor/Katsidis and at the start he compares Katsidis to Gatti which is understandable, then in the mid rounds he starts comparing Katsidis to Rocky Marciano!! Lennox Lewis does a good job for HBO as well. Of the British lot, Woodhall is great and Jim Watt is a good commentator as well. Though there is a bit too much Hatton arse-licking with Sky.
I would probably side with the Brit commentators. Like you say, the Americans appear to have better knowledge and i find that alot of British commentators (not just boxing but from all sports) can be annoying fence sitters but alot of American commentators have a grating habit of using **** poor anaolgies to portray what is happening in the ring. They seem to think doing this makes them sound poetic and intelligent. Teddy Atlas does this all the time which is annoying as he is actually very good at breaking down a fight and a fighters technique.