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

I never said it was a good decision....

 

Funnier though.

 

Jim Watt has been useless for a good few years now. Time to retire him and replace with Richie Woodhall.

 

Good post mate :good

I notice theres one poster on here shouting about how accurate Watts commentary was, and i've just found an old post with the same poster calling Watt a **** and knowing ****all about how to score a fight. :rofl

 

:deal

The constant repetition does my head in. And talking over the cornermen is unforgiveable.

 

OMG, hilarious!

It couldn't be that on a given night he was full of **** and on another (years apart) did a bang tidy job? :roll:

Neither man last night was Scottish nor a foreigner so none of the usual suspected biases of Watt (pro- Scottie countrymen; anti- non Brits) even come into play. With no dog in the race he generally does call it fair & balanced and his 45 years of combined experience in the ring and beside it at the commentary booth trump just about anybody's, anywhere so he does know his stuff. (it's just a matter of whether he is being honest on the night, which admittedly he sometimes doesn't seem to - yesterday not being an example)

 

totally agree i had to turn the sound off after a while

 

Froch was getting out jabbed, out landed, out fought & out though last night. He used his nose for his defense & had was taking repeated clean shots to the face all night long, Froch hardly landed anything clean and was getting desperate with his dirty tactics, elbows & constantly hitting on the break despite repeated warnings from the ref & bum rushing Groves & flailing & barging Groves into the ropes. Watt although not the best commentator called it as he saw it, Froch was getting dominated all night.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, Watt was commentating on Groves dominating the fight because that it what was happening.

 

Is the entire match uploaded on Youtube or something yet?

Or just each individual round?

If so, we need all those claiming it was close to provide detailed analytical breakdowns of the rounds between 1 and 7 they felt were not only 'close' but could be said to belong to Froch.

We shall then very methodically consult the video and discuss time-stamped examples of which man is doing what each moment and see if anyone can actually justify in a persuasive manner giving Froch any of those.

I'm an open-minded person, don't mind admitting being wrong if actually shown how & why I am, and was rooting for Froch to boot. It shouldn't be hard to convince me assuming you actually can make a realistic case in any round between the first and seventh. I doubt anyone can but will keep an open mind and not let presuppositions harden me against anyone's arguments...provided they are well informed and articulated.

 

Deluded frock fans will soon realise when they rewatch the fight he won the 9th round only.

Some of groves shots sounded sickening

On this occasion jim watt did call the fight correctly

 

The champion always takes the close rounds... Ffs you have been watching boxing how long

 

That is ******ed.

Whoever edges a close round takes it, however subtle the distinction between the work done.

Or if truly even, it goes down 10-10.

You don't arbitrarily reward the champion for already being the champion by tossing him a gimme round any time one is even vaguely close. That is just completely ******ed. The fact that idiots have been repeating that nonsense for ages doesn't validate it.

 

But it often is like that... It might be ******ed... It might be against the rules... But its often like that... Watched it once and scored 3,5 and 8 for Froch
(Not that the scoring or the stoppage mattered... Froch would have knocked out Groves anyway)

 

3 rounds for frock?

Get the **** outta here