The lack of impartiality of Sky Sports is sickening

i thought the last cleverly ight was a little fishy. the way the fight was called off so early after a bloody nose and small cut. clev was getting caught a lot in that fight and started looking like he was getting dragged into a fight.

their definitely seems like their's a bit help coming our way lately. i wouldn't say were any worse than germany though. i guess is one way of ensuring this country has a few more w champs. not really the right way to go about it though!

 

British boxing is a product. Sky sports are selling that product. It would be more surprising if they were actually impartial.

 

Thinking about it... are they any worse than their American counterparts?

Remember the coverage of Alexander vs Kotelnik and Martinez vs Williams II.

 

It's like the Olympics.... they'll always push the Brit to try and snag the interest of the casual viewer. I mean how many European title fights would they broadcast if there wasn't a home fighter involved?

They are actually impartial in comparison to RTE. Anyone who has seen McCloskey v Morrison cannot deny it!

 

Every young lad who aspires to be a boxer, should be studying tapes of McCloskey!:yep

 

And who can forget the Aussie commentary for Green/RJJ? :hey

 

I'm struggling to understand why when Sky is a domestic product specifically for the domestic market :huh

 

If you watch any sport with a home/away element the commentary team are bound to be biased.

Watch Australian cricket or rugby teams, British rugby teams etc, there's the ''wanting our lads to win'' element, which I don't mind.

It's not as if Sky declared Jamie Cox a worthy winner and said the scores should have been wider.

 

exactly. I don't see anything paticularly wrong with it a hint of bias.

theres plenty of times sky have gone agaisnt the UK fighter on decisions.

 

You would end up with some sort of souless, generic and monotone type commentary like on eurosport. You might be a purist but I can guarantee that a very large proportion of viewers who tune into a fight between a Brit and an overseas fighter will be shouting on the Brit and would want the commentary to enhance their experience by reflecting that. It happens in every other sport and with every other broadcaster around the world, why should boxing be different?

 

Plus there's a difference between calling what's going on with a tad of favouritism and blatant flagwaving.

Watch most John McDermott fights and that much is obvious :hey

 

One of my main problems is the bigging up of people just to create an event. I can understand the commentary and pundits being biased towards the British (which is cool) but you should have no problem favoring a boxer and calling a fight down the middle.

Thing is they are always trying to find a way to make right of a mis-match or they are afraid to call a limited boxer exactly what he is. Just say he has flaws and if he does anything then you have an underdog which sells more than a talented prospect anyway.

I think its a bit of an old school mentality in regards to the media as well. One of the problems with boxing now is that they try and promote boxers like they used to back in the day and the commentators/pundit jump on that because if it works everybody wins, the fans get a new boxer to follow, the broadcaster gets ratings and the promoter/boxers get the following and numbers they want.

Thing is though in this day and age any moron can type a name into the computer and everything will come up about them that they need to know. If they try to pull the wool over the general fans eyes it doesn't necessarily work as they only need to click a couple of links and can read un-biased opinions (most of the time).