They get paid to deliver that nonsense you know. Christ there are some numpties on here but I think I'd rather listen to them than Nelson and McCrory who just ramble on and on and on and in the end you haven't a clue what they are on about. Even Ed Robinson looked baffled and bored at times listening to their answers. Come on Sky, if you want people to lay out even more money to watch these so called huge fights at least get a commentary team who give insightful ****ysis for the viewer.
Jim ****t takes it to another level with his senile drivel on commentary. That old fool had Quigg two up.
Watt and Froch contradicted themselves with their scoring. Khan tried to sit on the fence. Strange to criticise Nelson and McCrory when they saw it as it was.
Nelson and McCrory might have had it spot on after but listen to their drivel all night leading up to the main event it was complete bollox
Carl Froch should be giving award acceptance speeches at the Oscars. He came out with an essay ****ysing who could win the fight only to at the end say "only because it's a safe bet.... Carl Frampton".
Sky's boxing punditry and commentary lags way, way behind the other sports they cover. McCrory and Nelson have been offering zero insight for decades between them, Nick Halling simply can't keep his mouth shut for longer than five seconds before the urge to say something overwhelms him, no matter how witless or irrelevant it may be. It doesn't have to be this way, Ian Darke could surely be tempted to work the big PPV shows for Sky. Jim Watt still has a lot to offer for me, but along side a polished professional like Ian Darke, not a ranting, rambling moron like Halling. Gary Lockett should get a few calls from Sky to do punditry, a writer like Ron Lewis would be welcome. The people covering boxing for Sky have become far too comfortable, and I don't think I've ever heard Nelson, McCrory or Froch say anything of interest or originality.
I agree totally. Ringside used to be a decent watch a few years back and then Nelson arrived and I started scratching my head wondering how on earth Sky paid him to be on there , he might be a lovely bloke but his presenting skills are shocking. And now on Sky's PPV events we get a double act of Nelson and McCrory who are like David Brent in that they start to answer a question and then head off somewhere completely different and in the end leave you wondering what on earth they are talking about.
Id like to see Ian Darke and Jim Watt doing the commentary, McCrory is ok , Nelson ok, Froch just talks too much, I actually do like Khan's input when he's on.
Nelson thrives when he is in the studio and is being asked the questions. When he was doing that and he'd have two/three guests around him, he'd be untouchable. That's his role, holding the mic etc and being in charge isn't.
Nelson asking froch last night his final prediction was ridiculous, he rambled on for 5 minutes about nonsense then just picked frampton. Froch got the gig clearly because of his assocation with matchroom which would be fine but he has always made it quite clear throughout his career that he was'nt a fan of boxing? He is one of those guys who excelled at a sport but didn't follow it at all, whenever he's asked about a fighter he will say 'Iv not seen much about him' or 'from what Iv seen' is a favourite line of his. I don't care if your a 10 weight world champion if you don't follow the sport how can you be a pundit after your careers over?!!! Jamie Moore was a good pundit very passionate about the sport but never gets a look in on the big shows to make way for clowns like froch.