Which boxing analysts are least credible?

I would say the worst most uncredible person that makes a living off of boxing, is Bert Sugar. I cant stand listening to his raspy smokers voice and seeing his rotten brown teeth, and he doesnt know **** about the sport other than a bunch of useless factoids that he gets from fights that already happened.
I would say Max, although a good guy for the sport is somewhat like Sugar. Farhood should not be a commentator, hes just boring, but more knowledgeable than Sugar and Kellerman. Lewis is doing ok in my opinion, and has experience. Kelley is excellent and Atlas is too, although Atlas is a little annoying to listen to. I dont know how to classify Merchant. I used to dislike him a lot more when King was more involved with HBO, because of his horrible bias, that he refused to admit towards anything against Don King.

 

Yeah, Bert Sugar is the worst.

He tries to make fighters from the 1920's into superhuman monsters.

 

I vote that funniest comment on ESB.:rofl

I voted Max Kellerman because he doesn't do his research. He was once forced to admit he was talking about a Klitschko fight he hadn't actually watched.

I also voted Larry Merchant because of the silly, overly specific questions he asks fighters straight after fights in the ring. He also tried to patronise Lennox Lewis on several occasions & took too much pleasure in watching him squirm after the Klitschko fight.

I also want to throw another person, who is not on this list, into the mixer & that is Duke McKenzie. People outside of the UK may only know him for his boxing skills which were of a good standard. His commentating skills, however, are not. Infact I would go as far to say he is probably the worst commentator in the whole of sport, in this country second only to John Barnes.

He once got confused & actually used the word "uncredible" to describe a good thing a fighter did. Anyone who heard his commentary for the second Mayorga Forrest fight will surely say it was the most embarassing display of narrative ability in sports history. "Ahh, they both wanna win so bad" was one of many gems.:roll:

 

wow im surpised the votes for merchant. he is the best/funniest. but yea bert is living in the wrong era

 

I voted for Max Kellerman because he sucks. I meant to vote for Steve Farhood as my second choice because he reminds me of Max the way he kisses some fighter's asses.

 

Steve Bunce who is not on this list, but wins this by far.

Steve Bunce just exagerates and bigs up every fighter he is covering, and then contradicts himself later. Nothing he says can be taken seriously, he is a self parody joke.

 

.........and let me add that the question asks Which boxing analyst is the least credible?

Well obviously Teddy Atlas knows what he's talking about having been a world class trainer. Lennox Lewis is also very credible being a top 10 ATG Heavyweight.

I Like Sean O'Grady also, he was a fighter as well.

 

I actually like Larry Merchant the best. He's unique & interesting.

 

Lol. I'd forgotten about Bunce. Yeah he is a joke but not as bad as Duke McKenzie.

 

agreed.never a fighter,never a trainer and 'historian' is really just another word for someone with an interest in the sport.
he's a glorified fan like us.nothing wrong with that,doesnt make him a bad person,but doesnt make him an authority either.

occasionally in the uk we have to listen to merchants turgid ,convoluted,painfully drawn out postfight interviews.
fuk knows how you yanks put up with him.

 

true.hes terrible.like the guy in the pub who talks bollocks but you politely humour.
dont you think his column in B.M.Is also ****?

 

Kelerman is the biggest clown of the lot, it's painful listening to the stupid ****.

Merchant is THE MAN.

 

adios

 

Lol. So true.