The Sky Commentary was disgraceful last night

The part about their being unbiased being unrealistic is reasonable. The second point is nonsence, sorry but it is. Unbiased doesn't have to equal boring. I believe that both us at Boxing News and Glyn's team at Boxing Monthly produce unbiased reports and previews on a regular basis. This does not preclude them from being engaging and thought-provoking.

 

Are you producing live commentary during the broadcast of a fight?

 

I have just watched the HBO version on DailyMotion and it is just as poor. Very biased and basically follows the pattern somebody mentioned here, support one fighter but then later in the fight say things like "...but the crowd could be swaying this" or "remember the judges don't have the benefit of compubox".

The most annoying thing I heard in the fight was Max Kellerman say after the 12th round when Marquez momentarily lost his footing and nearly suffered a flash KD "There is no way any competent judge can now this round for Marquez after he was nearly dropped."

I mean seriously? Marquez clearly won the round, it was clear that he simply lost his footing he had Bradley on the back foot. He did not touch down, he was not hurt at all and he won the round clearly.

I felt the fight was close, Marquez probably shaded it in my eyes but there is nothing wrong with the decision. A split decision is a fair reflection.

 

Why does a lack of bias make content boring only on live TV? There's no sense in what you are saying. Is unbiased TV news boring? Not for me.

 

I actually like Al Bernstein the most out of every commentator at the moment. You can tell on some occasions that he wants a certain fighter to win but he still gives a fair and accurate reflection on what is transpiring.

 

Agree mate, he is talking rubbish. Commentators or only there to give interesting facts, in depth analysis and an accurate running COMMENTARY on what is really happening. This does not mean make a big deal one guy lands a shot and then talk about something completely unrelated to the fight when the fighter they don't want to win lands.

 

I am not saying that. But being unbiased in a preview of a fight is a heck of a lot easier than it is during the heat of the moment.

Commentary is meant to make you think. You may agree with some of it (as some have here), or you may disagree (as others have), but it is designed to be informative, helpful and create debate and discussion. If everything was straight down the line it would be boring.

 

you obviously are not serious?
he lost his footing because he got a left hander across his head have you blocked that bit out?
as for shading the fight ,well now i know you are on a wind up

 

Yes but you're confusing opinionated with biased. It's a fine line but fairly obvious when repeatedly crossed.

 

It's subjective, as this thread shows. Some agreed with the commentary, others didn't.

Job done.

 

Saying you think Bradley won clearly isn't agreeing with all aspects of the commentary. Think you're just being provocative now so I'm out.

 

Jim Watts lost respect when he said Pacquiao shouldn't have been celebrating his KO win over Hatton

 

He was hit with punch while he was off balance but A) he was clearly not hurt by it and B) he did not touch down. I'd probably have only given that round a 10-9 to Bradley if Marquez had touched down because Marquez was clearly not hurt, clearly off balance and clearly did the better work in the round.

Simple as that, if you think otherwise YDKSAB.

 

Absolutely not. But if you truly believe unbiased commentary is at all feasible I am genuinely shocked.

I cannot think of a single sport in which this occurs.

 

Right this I can agree on although the debate and discussion part is not essential. The reason some people here are complaining is that commentators are not doing this. They are using there platform to sway opinion in the favour of the fighter they are trying to build up.