SKY's fight night coverage in need of change?

The entire presentation needs a massive overhaul on Sky. The pundits and commentators are a bland bunch of biased sycophants without an ounce of charisma. Jamie Moore is fine, Bob Mee is knowledgeable but apart from those two, I think you could swap everyone else. Nelson, Smith, Watt, McCrory, Piper etc., are so ****ing painfully bland.

No matter what Hearn wants to do with Sky boxing, whilst these lot are on, it'll still have a stuffy, stale feel to it. Compare Sky to Showtime or HBO and it's night and day.

 

Ero-sennin,Disagree on a couple of points.First,Woodhall said that Calzaghe was his friend,which to be fair has been well known for a while,and that he saw Froch on a regular basis in Sheffield.Also thought on his feet and implied that Joe would "find a way".I thought he handled an awkward question well.Secondly,regarding being articulate,Fred Trueman was IMO the best ever at talking about cricket and definitely no plum in his mouth.Not a million miles from Johnny Nelson as it happens.Strangely enough,I like him too.For me the best new one is Barry Jones,who's a witty guy if its not scripted.

 

but that's my point. It shouldn't be awkward at all. If it's your boss then fair enough, but surely mates can be completely honest with each other.

Yeah that's a fair point. You've also got some of the American guys from working class backgrounds who speak really well and have charisma. Hopkins for example. I just don't see too many guys like that over here though. For me Haye is probably the best of the bunch.

 

Nicky Piper looks like Claire Balding. Maybe they should swap and he can do C4 racing, she does boxing..

 

Nicky Piper looks like any fat lesbian to be fair.

 

Reckon it gets him birds? Look like a dyke and get to lick a load of lesbian muff as long as you tucked it between the legs?

 

Rob, Showtime's coverage is excellent. Don't know where you're getting the Yanks hate it, sites like Badlefthook seem to love it. Mauro Ranallo is questionable but Bernstein and Paulie are fantastic. And they've not shown much pro-GBP bias at all.

HBO seem to get a lot more stick from American boxing fans (just going by the general and the stuff on blogs/other sites).

Ero makes some excellent points. The problem with British boxing is that it's too small a scene. Everyone knows everyone and people are afraid to air their true opinions. That's the same with Boxnation and Sky.

Boxing can be an incredibly exciting and entertaining sport yet Sky constantly fail to get that across. Middle-aged men peddling the same tired cliches that they have been for the past decade and a half, not really informed on international fighters. The amount of times when it's been obvious that us lot on here know more about a fighter than Sky's punditry crew do!

The best pundits are engaging and point out things the average viewer doesn't notice. Just look at Gary Neville (or pretty much anyone on Sky's cricket show). When I watch a Showtime broadcast that happens a lot with Paulie and Al. Roy Jones is the same. None of Sky's lot do that.

If they can't do that then at least have someone who is forthright and blunt in their opinions like Graeme Souness and Geoff Boycott are with their sports.

Do we even have these types of analysts/pundits around in British boxing?

 

Have Sky not got no footage in a vault somewhere that would make there possession untenable ala Keys and Gray

Adam Smith nudging Johnny Nelson when Glen McCrory is bending over saying 'Would you smash in Johnny'

 

Sky seem to play it safe. Every presenter, analyst or special guest is mind numbingly boring and often old.

We want people to ask the tough questions like Dempsey or say what people might not like to hear like Eubank.

Nelson has had two roundtables with top fighters and failed spectacularly on both occassions. In the first Froch needed to help him out and likewise in the second Eubank needed to take control of exposing Collins. Get rid of Watt, Nelson etc and bring in Dempsey, Froch and Eubank. McGuigan is also really passionate and doesn't mind disagreeing with someone.

 

They do need a massive clear out. The same people have been getting gigs in British boxing for ages - Smith, McCrory, Piper, Watt, Nelson, Woodhall, Bunce, Rawling.

These are the only boxing 'experts' your casual fan comes across. Out of those the only one I don't mind is Woodhall.

 

everything i read and the podcasts i listen to just slate the Showtime/Goldenboy show. They have been bigging up the ring title the past few weeks as the true world title. pushing danny garcia as the truth champion at 140 and canelo at 154 etc.

all your other points are correct. But that is the thought of the fighters, journos, pundits and fans collectively, not sky.

the reason why woodhall wouldnt answer the question about froch was because he would have froch on the phone pissed of with him. fighters take that kind of thing really personally. you see bunce on twitter ripping into danny flexen when he got a pick wrong.

there are some genuine boxing historian/conesours on the sky team but they don't seem to get the gigs. Ed Robison & Spencer Fearon, if you listen to there podcast they really know there stuff. Spencer Oliver seems to have detailed knowledge of everyone in the lower weight classes. Jamie Moore is quality at breaking down fights. McGuigan is also a top pundit. But these guys are not given the gig often enough.

 

Woodhall is very good as a co comentator. Bunce needs pros around him.

 

Tbf, this week Brian Kenny did question whether the Ring belt really meant Garcia is the top man, what with Matthysse wreaking havoc in the division.

Yeah, and a lot of fighters are touchy ****ers. Even on the odd occasion when Watt or someone says something negative about a British fighter they have a bit of a rant when they find out. This week Derry Matthews had a go at the Jim Watt parody account thinking it was actually Watt atsch. We all know what a bellend Paul Smith is when someone else has an opinion on him.

Spencer Oliver seemed alright when he first turned up. So what do they do with him? Keep him ringside and give him about 15 seconds every few rounds. Ed Robinson's never allowed to do a proper interview, just a quick minute chat before we go back to the studio to hear yet more pointless bollocks. Why do Sky insist on taking it back to the studio? None of them are going to offer any fresh insight.

And they need to sort out the lead commentator (play-by-play guy as the Americans call it). No one in the UK can do that apart from Darke? How? Rawling's been getting the job for years with other channels but is too boring and Halling is horrific.

 

Colin Hart is the only one that I can think of really. It wouldn't actually be a bad idea to get Boycott to commentate on the boxing. Can you imagine him getting the gig for a Khan fight?

Pre fight analysis: "I'm sorreh, but that chin is so fragile that my mother could probably put him on his backside.

During the fight: "Awww for goodness sake Amir what are ya doing! No! Get yer hands up and just try te survive the damn round for heavens sake, awww what on earth are you doing lad! No no no"

Post fight analysis: "Well ee got hit with a good shot and did that dance that ee usually does, but what ee should 'ave done then is try te survive the round. You can't always go in all guns blazing you know. But what did ee do? He went toe to toe and got knocked out. Listen, I love Amir to bits ees a luvleh lad but ees not got much between the ears has our Amir.

 

Sky is not geared to casual fans, its geared to dumbed down "we know what we are" zombies. They constantly try to insult your intelligence and stereotype. You've got sportsmen (footballers specifically) who instead of pursuing a career in football management and backing up what they say, they'd rather take the cushty corporate job with Sky and talk talk talk about football in a studio. If they know best, then why aint they putting it into practice? Cloughy was saying this **** before even the great craney was born!!!

Whilst I agree with you and understand to a certain extent on Froch, its how they are going about that exposure, and how Froch is behaving with it. Froch had no exposure at one point, I myself used to be a big supporter of Carl in the early days. When I used to support individual fighters. But when he started getting what he deserved, eventually, after all those years of being in the shadows, and started getting the credit he deserved, he become a right **** about it and towards other fighters. Who is Carl Froch to criticize who other fighters spar with? Froch is not the king of Boxing, and he doesnt control it. Not in this country or anywhere else. When you constantly get bombarded with "warrior" it starts to get a little cringey. The exposure is cheesy, and thats what people have a "problem" with, and it would probably help if Froch started being real and not coming across as bitter and jealous every time he opens his mouth in the media. I've seen it on here in recent weeks with die-hard Froch fans starting to dislike him. :good

Cheers.