Jim Watts's commentary was so biased on Sky....

Because Froch didn't really do much and when he did, Groves replied with better shots. In the last round Watt acknowledged that Froch hurt Groves.

 

this

what froch did was **** poor mate....re-watch it!

 

That's complete nonsense. Groves was winning the fight but he was getting tagged himself here and there.

 

Froch probably had a 5-10% connect rate.

Groves was slipping and dodging the majority of shots.

Take your froch goggles off and re-watch the fight

Groves outlanded froch MASSIVELY

 

I thought I was the only one who noticed this idiot talking annoyingly. By all mens recognise the great work by Groves; but even when Frocwas making small in roads, he was still talking crap about 'how Froch's jab isn't there' or 'how froch isn't defending himself'.

Yet, when Froch was starting to tee-off on Groves, it's as if Watts forgot to mention the good work by Froch.

 

totally agree, completely biased, worse than hbo were during the mosley/mora fight. I think froch was wearing him down and was no more than 2 points down on the cards

 

I have repeatedly said he was winning the fight.

 

You mean Froch's seven jabs that hit nothing but air and thus didn't deserve to be commented upon? As compared to Groves' eye-catching flush overhand rights smashing visibly into that big schnoz? Watt actually called the action with total objectivity and accuracy yesterday and had exactly the right score.


...and I picked & was pulling for Froch.

 

Yeah I have been thinking the same way for awhile now. Seems once a fighter has a good round or two, he has trouble "seeing" the other guys activity.

 

...a good round or seven, in this case.

 

There is about 10 of you out of thousands that think it was a good stoppage :rofl That should tell you something.

 

It probably is more like a million to one, finding those who deep in their hearts truly believe the stoppage to have been fair.

 

Before the fight Jim Watt realized how far up Froch's arse the whole sky sports team and fan base was and was trying to offer a pro-groves perspective. Nobody at sky sports really gave Groves a real live chance except Watt (besides haye who joined the proceedings late). His commentary definitely ended up being in favour of Groves tho.

 

I think Jim Watt's commentary was one sided and came off as being biased in favour of Groves. Based on his commentary you'd think Froch was getting beaten badly in every round when in reality he was in the fight for most rounds apart from the 1st when he got dropped and the 6th when he got hit more than I have ever seen him hit before.

He kept on criticising Froch's jab when Froch was landing cleanly with it. After most exchanges he was highlighting Groves work but ignoring the fact that Froch was landing some clean shots as well.

Few expected Groves to do as well as he did so I can understand someone being caught up in the drama of the moment but as a professional commentator he should be able to distance himself from the drama and give a more accurate portrayal of the fight.

 

He sounds like Billy Connolly.