He is a good pundit except when froch is fighting... He's too emotionally attached to frochs camp duento his work with mccracken and the ameteur lads. He was clearly biased for froch both pre and post fight... Making too many excuses for froch and not giving groves enough credit. Watching back the fight the other day, i saw how both him and nelson were in the ring before the fight and he comepletely dismissed groves as a puncher. Fair enough if people on the internet did that... But woodhall should have known better... Nelson was even giving groves more credit pre fight than woodhall who was firmly entrenched with frochs crew.
Even the best analysts in history get things wrong! It's about calling most things right and giving good rationale behind your opinions in an impartial manner.woodhall does all of this.
I agree with this. He wrote off Groves's chances. I felt he could make it competitive as hes shown ability to box and stick to a plan (degale fight) but in truth Groves blew a lot of predictions out of the water. Only those who had worked closely with Groves gave him a chance.
He's good in that I agree with a lot of his opinions. Maybe a bit harsh but he isn't the most engaging pundit though. Sometimes find him a bit on the dull side, although seems like a good guy who clearly knows his stuff.
Woodall one of the best, as for skys watt and halling show they should get rid of them get Woodall and Ron McIntosh in, i know Ron does go on a bit but at least he says what he see's and has passion in doing so
Not exactly, rather conveniently he tried to avoid the talk of Groves' punching power until Jonny made a point of reminding him of the KD. Still, he come across a decent bloke though and I enjoy his punditry. :good
lol ...true! why they have him on ??!! Mathew Macklin , Carl Froch , Tony Bellew , Barry Jones, Paul Smith....& few others not very famous boxers dont know there names ...really good! Macklin is brilliant!