Jim Watt AS MUCH to thank as Foster for Froch Groves 2

Ok I agree that the commentary probably would influence casual viewers but other people who are more knowledgeable also agreed with the commentators views. For example, I think I remember Intentional Butt agreeing with it and I think other pundits, pro boxers etc have also pretty much agreed with what Watt was saying.
I disagree about Jim being bad at his job because I get the feeling Sky would be happy with his getting excited but that's not relevant.

I don't think Froch won any round clearly so it is possible to have a card where Froch doesn't win a round (I personally think I gave Froch 2 rounds and 1 even), plus he got dropped. Depending on your definition, that can be considered dominating. I agree that Groves was not running away with the fight, he should have been comfortably ahead on the cards but Froch seemed to be gaining momentum.

I agree with all of that. Looking forward to seeing how the rematch goes :good

 

Cards on table, I can't stand Watts. He's a terrible commentator who latches on to an idea of a fight early (or comes to the fight with a preconception) and lets it cloud his commentary. Even when I watch fights as a complete neutral he gets on my bloody nerves by banging on about action that happened five minutes ago instead of letting the main commentator talk about the fight. Admittedly I can't think of a specific example right now which is frustrating but I'm pretty sure I preferred the HBO coverage of the Froch vs Ward fight when I rewatched it a few times.

That rant aside, I'm not disagreeing with anyone who, like Watts, thinks Groves was heavily on top (though not dominating, see below) just that the way he does it doesn't match the actual action on screen. The blithering about the dirty fighting (Froch's little digs after break is called and Groves getting pushing in his forehead during clinches etc.) only against Froch such as the point deduction bollocks. The whole second round which was close but he goes on about Groves dominating, the few times where Froch lands a combination and he mentions Groves getting the last shot as if one punch against four is a good thing. He's just plain bad.

Final bit here, I do think he's got something against Froch. Nothing personal (I think) more stylistic but he shouldn't let it cloud his judgement as a commentator. I can see where he's coming from, I remember the Johnson fight where Froch keeps eating (without really blinking) massive rights and making life difficult for himself but that's Froch. Frustrating but it is what it is.

You're right about this being a definition issue. Dominate to me isn't far off meaning a shutout but that might not be the case for everyone. Even in the rounds where I thought Groves clearly won I didn't think Froch was in massive trouble and he did enough in every round for them not to be one sided. Judges don't seem to give drawn rounds any more so Groves being up by 3 or 5 is perfectly fine, 7 ok too.

This we can all agree on!

Ugh, don't mention Stuart Barnes. What an absolute bell end with nothing useful to say about rugby. Commentating for him is a platform for being a berk, nothing to do with the game on show!

 

Oh yes, it has worked brilliantly this time for SKY, Matchroom and the fighters.

One very good fighter who fell just short of the best, in Froch and a very good prospect who showed himself world class (Groves) have somehow due to one exciting fight managed to sell 80,000 tickets and get a British PPV date.

The fight was very good, the controversy around it compelling, but THAT compelling? Clever manipulation of modern communications have taken this fight to an amazing level. Peer pressure in a capitalist society is potentially a powerful, powerful tool.

 

I thought Watt was actually pretty good in Froch Groves. Sure he was seeing Groves work but dont people remember thst Groves won most rounds and was essentially dominating? And in fairness to Watt he basically called the stoppage bs. He pretty much called the fight as it was imo