does commentary influence your take on a fight?

No! I know what I'm seeing in the ring so commentary doesn't influence my stance. Commentators have been known for being biased you should form your own opinion. Prime example PBF-Hatton they made it seem like Hatton was really doing something in there when it was PBF who was landing all the clean shots and breaking Hatton down.

 

it never influences me, but it does influence others. the hbo announcers had my friends believing taylor was beating winky, and that castillo was winning a landslide against floyd during their first fight. those are just a few examples, but there are plenty more.

 

I think commentary does influence a fans take on the fight especially if its a close fight.

People's judgement gets clouded by the blow by blow and the letterman card. The commentators show personal bias and favortism towards certain fighters. At times those guys don't even say exactly whats going on ...

I wish it was back when RJJ and George Foreman were expert commentators because they knew more about the game and never showed bias ... I also think that Lennox Lewis does a great job as well. RJJ never showed bias because when it came down to it he knew the guys who were fighting could never beat him.

He also seen landed punches that the other guys didn't see, he explained so much - to where you could understand.

No one ever disputed what he said either because he would turn around and asked them when did they box?

He had no problem with pulling rank ...

 

It has to. The role of a commentator is to tell us, the viewer, what is actually happening. On TV, you miss a lot of shots, and don't know whether they graze or land full on. The commentators role is to tell us which punches are landing and which aren't. If they say, for example, Mosley threw 10 punches and landed 1 cleanly, but De La Hoya threw 10 and landed 10, you have to assume it's true. Then it influences your decision.

You simply can't see every punch landed. the camera angle, picture quality, sound and whatever else, is simply not good enough to see everything. You have to take the commentators word for it.

 

As a boxing fan you have to assume that both fighters are going to get hit because its a fight ... its up to you to determine who's getting hit more and who's punches are more effective.

I think often times where blinded with the commentators personal bias ...

Instead of telling the fans that Klitschko was dominating the Ibragimov fight with his jab and controling the pace ... they were talking about why he wasn't throwing his right hand. Why he hasn't knocked Sultan out ... when its not all about the knockout and Wlad boxed very well ... its hard to be that discipline to just throw one punch and have it be as effective as it was.

PBF fights ... why do they always say that he throws the straight right hand ... and he doesn't throw any jabs ... when infact if you watch him fight you would see that he throws all kinds of punches.

 

Good response. I agree with what you have posted.

Most people who watch any sport are not experts and they are not neutral. These factors make it hard for a TV viewer to accurately know what is going on. It is therefore the commentators view point which is supposed to be neutral and knowledgable which should help you understand exactly what is going on.

It would be interesting if every TV commentator and so called expert at ring side were forced to submit their own "official" scorecards to a neutral organisation which would then collate the results and show rankings on who is the closest to the official judges. If this were done over a year you could see who was good and who was bad.