The sky commentary team are too biased!

I called Ortiz too, we were damn nearly right. I'll only dig him out on picks if he has no reason for picking them, it's company line or it's pure bias. Like when he said Jeter might be too much for Eubank Jr for example or suggesting Brook can KO GGG early.

 

Totally agree, a internet campaign is the best way to go but a lot of the big boxing social media platforms are in the pocket. Fans would need to come together to sort something.

 

this. I've seen quite a few people saying "Bellew rocked Usyk a few times in that fight, even Adam Smith & Carl Froch who were ringside said it"

 

All this talk that Sky have the "production values" that other broadcasters can't replicate.

If you tell a lie enough times people start to believe it, as is the case with that.

The WBSS had great production and lighting (better than Sky Sports) and the US broadcasters and BT have more 'substance' over Sky's apparent 'style'.

Stop telling people that Sky have a 'slick' production when they don't.

They have a personality bore in Anna Woolhouse presenting, who never asks decent questions and has the charisma of a brick. They have bias pundits who are regularly wrong (Nelson, Macklin, Froch). They have the single worse play-by-play in the business (Adam Smith) and their general lighting and production is actually pretty basic.

Yet still people, mainly casuals on Twatter, will talk about how Sky have the best production in world boxing. It's cringeworthy.

 

Exactly, they are rewriting history but as it actually happens, it's just spin.

Instead of taking a step back, watching the fight again, being honest with themselves and the audience..

The next Sky Sports boxing programme about this fight will be repeating again and again Bellew was ahead on the cards, he was causing Usyk all sorts of problems and the stoppage came out of the blue.

It will get more and more exaggerated over time. It happens with other fighters quite a lot.