More "brilliant" punditry from expert boxing ****yst Carl Froch

Yeah I agree, he's similar to Andy Lee in that he is like a boxing encyclopaedia and will give detailed ****ysis unlike Johnny and Glenn who if you listen carefully talk absolute nonsense

 

Good post

 

The whole Sky set up has really lost its way. The reformatted ringside show, the likes of Nelson et al as the pundits have just not had the impact. In my opinion the whole Sky package has regressed and it needs a drastic overhaul.

 

Froch admitted during his career that he isn't a big fan of watching boxing. He seems to me that he is like many boxing pundits today; he checks out youtube in the week before a fight to research who is fighting.

There really is a lack of boxing pundits with a knowledge of boxing worldwide. You need someone who knows the technical aspects of the sport, but also watches cards from all over the world like Dan Rafael.Considering it is their job, it really is inexcusable the lack of knowledge many pundits have on a large number of fighters, even top 10 ranked fighters, today.

 

Jamie Moore is a good pundit on Sky and Paul Smith to a certain degree but he is part of the Matchroom gang so is a touch bias when it comes to anyone in his gym or stable

 

Bring in Eddie Chambers, he was quite good commentating on C5. As someone mentioned Sky could use Jamie Moore, Alex Arthur, but prefer to use Carl Froch and Amir Khan, two of the most boring and delusional commentators ever. They make Johnny Nelson's commentary look like Paulie Malignaggi.

 

This

If you are going to give an ex pro a job as a pundit, at least give the job to someone who loves boxing and watches boxing as a hobby.

There are ex pro's out there like that.

Find one of them, and give them the job