Noticed a few people wasn't to pleased with his handling of the interviews at end of Pascal-Hopkins. Not the first time or last that Jim has comes across in this manner and rubbed people up the wrong way. James Toney's one his biggest fans Anyways what did you think of him last night when interviewing both men. He quite clearly gave his thoughts and allowed his view on the fight to come across in the interviews. Personally i didn't see much wrong it myself...i think there's nothing better then a bit of confrontational interviewing now and then. *Btw Showtime have been one of my highlights in 2010...Tarver's addition has been fantastic* [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aED4ztNCUTE[/ame]
Yeah i agree mate. It's like when Pascal said something like yeah i take rematch and then when asked if he'd do it in U.S he started chatting **** and Gray wouldn't let him off hook which i liked.
brutal honesty... he was there and witnessed it. said to bernard that he thought he won...then to pascal..he said "do you think you won" and "why "? too bad for pascal if he stammered over the question wondering how he gets to keep his belts himself He did his job.
His job as a journalist is to be impartial, not to give his own views. It's not like when Merchant presents evidence to challenge a fighter, he went out of his way to make out Bernard was some victim. Bernard got knocked down twice. Fact. He won at least seven rounds. Fact. But Pascal could easily have won another three to score a draw. Fact. All of that was lost on Gray as he went pressing his own opinion which his co-analysts didn't agree with entirely. That said, he was right to challenge Pascal on whether he thought he'd won. But he came across as a bit of a dick in how he did it. Kellerman and Merchant are much better at that stuff. Gray just came across as a punk.
didnt he catch pascal out aswell..... something along the lines of will u re-match b-hop and pascal said yes then asked at end of interview he said he'd have to talk to his team :yep im glad it didnt go un-noticed by jim gray and made his, and in a way our voice heard if that makes sense :hey
He's a journalist. That's not his job. But he was right to challenge Pascal - but then no one had said Jean had won, so it was rather pointless. The judges had clearly scored more rounds for Hopkins, hence the draw. So I don't see how that qualifies as some sort of questing journalism!
I thought he was rubbish. He is awkward, abrasive and confrontational. I'm not too keen on his style. He doesn't really ask anything astute or on the money or profound.
I was glad that he portrayed the view everyone was feeling. However, I have a strange feeling if the victim wasn't american , e.g kotelnik vs alexander, then he would have kept his mouth shut
Exactly, as I said on the RBR it was unprofessional. Second rule of journalism is it's not a reporters job to have an opinion, he is there to ask the right questions. Bernstein and Tarver are paid for their opinions. It's like when you see interviews after a football match and the manager will occasionally retort "and what did you think of it...", which will usually lead to an awkward situation when the reporter tries to get out of answering the question. I'm not saying all reporters should just ask dumb, robotic questions, by all means bring a fighter up on something he has said or done, but he came across as a cheerleader trying to keep Bernard happy during the interview.
