Printable View
As I banged on about last night, Jim Watt is an absolute moron when it comes to scoring boxing fights and Sky really need to replace him with someone who actually knows what they're watching. How he had Bute winning that last night is truly astounding. An article has appeared on WBN, and clearly I'm not the only one who thinks Sky need to have a word...
World Boxing News - Fans puzzled as Sky pundit Jim Watt scores fight for Lucian Bute
I turned it off after the first 5 rounds because bute was doing nothing, and i knew at that point he needed a knockout to win. Bute stops punching when he gets hurt.
Pundit? Idiot is the right way to describe him.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfn
Wonder what MEDS he is taking, most be some good stuff to be able to take him that far from reality.
Watt may have passed his sell by date, they need to find someone who can read the game better.
He didn't punch at all until the 11th. He must have been hurt when climbed into the ring.Quote:
Originally Posted by awdleyfuturehalloffamer
I've wondered how anyone finds him to be anything but a joke. It's not just how off base he always is, but that voice, my god! He is insufferable to me, it actually makes me angry the way he pronounces things:p. I think muting the sound is really lame but I literally do it if the best quality stream I can find is from Sky sports. Between the accent and the bagpipes, Scotland has got to be the worst sonic entity in the universe.
At the same time, the HBO crew were VERY biased in favor of Pascal.
Lederman's scorecard was way too wide, the fight was much closer. Kellerman was going on about how Bute wasn't throwing, while ignoring the fact that Pascal wasn't throwing much either.
He got hurt either in the first or second round. I give him that round one was a feel out round. I was surprised that he came back in the 12 round.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedHe didn't punch at all until the 11th. He must have been hurt when climbed into the ring.Quote:
Originally Posted by awdleyfuturehalloffamer
The guy who wrote the article is clearly an imbecile himself though. He gave Bute 2 rounds. I thought that Pascal won and thought that he would but he certainly did not score a 10 rounds to 2 shut out. It was a fairly close fight. I don't see what your problem is really. If Watt had it 115-114 to Bute that is hardly the worst score card ever as some people are calling it. I don't think Bute won but the early rounds could have went either way so uncommitted and lack lustre was the performance from both men. Then in the last three rounds Pascal literally stood there and got punched for huge sections of each round even boasting after how he enjoyed the pain of being punched in the head because "..that's boxing baby". What a bell end. You all obviously hate Jim Watt because he doesn't sound like David Niven or Howard Cosell. The American commentators on every single boxing match I have watched in the last ten years are at least a million times worse and far more grating. So embarrassing, uneducated and crass are their performances that pets hurl themselves out of 15th floor windows and birds purposefully fly into the engines of Boeing 747's to avoid hearing any more.
Sky should use Ritche Woodhall as a co commentator.
By far the best man for the job ;)
Really... what did Pascal do aside from 10 second flurries at the end of the rounds? Flurries that half of the shots landed. Bute scored the entire round... from start to finish. Had better technique and showed some real ring-generalship.
If anything, because the fight truly proved nothing, I would have given both of them a draw. Really!
Yet again showing how you are unable to score a boxing matchQuote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
What a pathetic article. How can you admit to not hearing the commentary but have the arrogance to criticise it? Ridiculous.
Watt said all through the fight, with not much happening it's possible you can interpret these rounds different.
I grew up less than 3 streets from Jim Watts family, my best mate of 20+ years had a grandfather who trained us and some of the top Glaswegian boxers including a young Ricky Burns, he also fought Watt in the amateurs and was close with him and because of this I've met Watt on a few occasions.
So you'd think after all that, that I may have a biased opinion and really like Watt.
But no he is an absolute dick when it comes to scoring fights. Granted I didn't have the gap nearly as wide as the judges but pascal clearly won the fight.
Every card I watch he annoys me, I hate his voice, and it's made worse because my accent is identical. I just hope I don't sound like a tool when I talk about boxing.
My thoughts exactly :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Bute should be ashamed of himself for taking a paycheck for that performance. The guy actually has the nerve to call himself a fighter after following his opponent around for 11 rounds and doing nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
He said the same thing himself and then has the balls to say yes when Kellerman asks him if he wants another go at Pascal.
As far as I'm concerned Bute is finished, it now takes him 11 rounds to work up enough nerve to fight for one round.
They should keep RJJ away from Pascal, if Roy keeps telling him how good he is his head might explode.
are people in this thread actually agreeing with watt? i think that you could give bute 4 rounds at most. i gave him 3. pascal fought like he normally does which is in flurries but bute didnt even throw punches. the fight was not even close. it wasnt that pascal was great, it was that bute was terrible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
Yes, Pascal dominated the fight and fought in spurts as is his norm. The fight was not close at all, although I was worried for Pascal at the start of the 12th. He was gassed and taking a lot of punches.
C'mon @Greenbeanz, you have to watch that again if you thought that was close. I had it 8 rounds to 4 in favour of Pascal. I was being kind of generous to Bute as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
As for why I don't like Jim Watt, I'm sick of listening to him prattle on when he doesn't seem to see what is actually going on in the ring. He gives an opinion and Sky pundits treat it like it's gospel when he couldn't be more wrong. I've also seen him give a bad scorecard at halfway and upon finding out Harold Lederman has a separate scorecard he evens his up. Watt is awful. Glenn McCrory, Barry McGuigan & Richie Woodhall all do a better job in the co-commentator slot.
Does anyone think if they had to call a fight and score it at the same time without any influence they wouldn't make themselves look like a cunt?
Every single week on this forum there are people that see fights different. Everyone thinks their scorecard is perfect. If you are forced to submit scores by the round you are gonna get some strange results. That's the reason for so much "poor" judging.
most fights have a range where scores are acceptable. for example, there is no way to score the fight a win for bute in a shutout. there were obvious rounds that he lost that it would be impossible to score for him. i would also say the same for the other side. bute clearly won the 12th round and there is no way that a judge should give it to pascal. this is because there is common sense in judging fights. certain rounds are just obvious to anybody who knows anything about boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
certain rounds are close or at least semi close and i can see how you could score it for either fighter. the problem comes when you intentionally score every semi close round for the same fighter because of bias or influence even when the other fighter probably did better.
so for this fight, there is a range of scores which are acceptable and scoring 6 or more rounds for bute is unacceptable.
Jim Watts scoring is bad at times
he is one of the most entertaining commentator across the channels tho
i watch american commentating and they just love the sound of their own voices, i remember the america v britain contender thing in newcastle and the american commontators completely spoilt it
they need to learn that it isnt all about what they thing about everything that has ever happened in boxing in hostory and it is about making the action more watchable
each one was just waiting for their chance to talk and then once they got in they just went on and on, less is more sometimes
pauls smith on boxnation is utterly boring
jim watt adds to the fight entertainment
Pascal was rubbish. It was a truly terrible performance by both boxers but there is no way Pascal dominated anything by fighting for ten seconds in a round. If you seriously think I would put myself through watching that again you are sadly mistaken. Bute may have been worse but I truly believe there was no huge chasm dividing the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfnC'mon @Greenbeanz , you have to watch that again if you thought that was close. I had it 8 rounds to 4 in favour of Pascal. I was being kind of generous to Bute as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
As for why I don't like Jim Watt, I'm sick of listening to him prattle on when he doesn't seem to see what is actually going on in the ring. He gives an opinion and Sky pundits treat it like it's gospel when he couldn't be more wrong. I've also seen him give a bad scorecard at halfway and upon finding out Harold Lederman has a separate scorecard he evens his up. Watt is awful. Glenn McCrory, Barry McGuigan & Richie Woodhall all do a better job in the co-commentator slot.
There were numerous 10 second bursts in the round and Bute was doing nothing but fainting and throwing single shots. Pascal wobbled him a few times as well. I thought it was pretty clear cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenbeanz
And if you're not gunna agree with me anymore then you can no longer be my alt.
HBO was off form all evening and again. Housefighter gets a draw he doesn't deserve and Lederman's card all wacko, then the main event and everything going to Pascal and Roy Jones getting a Mickey role for the HBO cameras. Clearly we know who they want to win. Not close early on, but Lederman was trying his hardest not to give Bute his rounds. I had the fight about 7-5 Pascal in the end. Quite close considering how Pascal gassed. Again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
Then calls for a rematch. Please, dear god no. Let Bute find some confidence first.
That is the problem though. If you acknowledge that a particular round is "close" you have to accept the possibility it can be scored either way. Therefore there's nothing wrong with scoring all the close rounds for one fighter. When you have to submit a score on a round by round basis there's the possibilty the "dominant" fighter comes out losing.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpunchermost fights have a range where scores are acceptable. for example, there is no way to score the fight a win for bute in a shutout. there were obvious rounds that he lost that it would be impossible to score for him. i would also say the same for the other side. bute clearly won the 12th round and there is no way that a judge should give it to pascal. this is because there is common sense in judging fights. certain rounds are just obvious to anybody who knows anything about boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
certain rounds are close or at least semi close and i can see how you could score it for either fighter. the problem comes when you intentionally score every semi close round for the same fighter because of bias or influence even when the other fighter probably did better.
so for this fight, there is a range of scores which are acceptable and scoring 6 or more rounds for bute is unacceptable.
There are literally dozens and dozens of fights every year where you can make a case for either fighter depending on who was "favoured" by close rounds.
If the majority of people scored Pascal the winner then Pascal is the winner (IMO). But it's understandable without corruption or incompetence that people can find a different winner with a bunch of uncompetitive rounds with not a lot happening.
The absolute truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
Excellent assessment but it's out-horribled by Germany.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
I've never been able to tolerate Jim Watt. Such a pessimistic, whiney old fart.
Smash is right. Woodhall would be much better. Even Maguigan. I could listen to him speak forever! (my wife wishes she could put him in her pocket and take him out for sorry time!!)
Malignaggi lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus
while i agree with your point altogether, i dont agree with it relating to the pascal-bute fight. i have scored fights in the past a draw or even for the fighter that i thought should have lost. this is pretty uncommon but it has happened. as i already stated though, some rounds cannot be disputed. so in the case of this fight, there werent more than 5 close rounds that could be given to bute (and that is being generous). the question is, at what point is a round a sure win for a fighter? obviously its up for the judges to decide, but if they cant do it competently then they shouldnt be judging.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterThat is the problem though. If you acknowledge that a particular round is "close" you have to accept the possibility it can be scored either way. Therefore there's nothing wrong with scoring all the close rounds for one fighter. When you have to submit a score on a round by round basis there's the possibilty the "dominant" fighter comes out losing.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpunchermost fights have a range where scores are acceptable. for example, there is no way to score the fight a win for bute in a shutout. there were obvious rounds that he lost that it would be impossible to score for him. i would also say the same for the other side. bute clearly won the 12th round and there is no way that a judge should give it to pascal. this is because there is common sense in judging fights. certain rounds are just obvious to anybody who knows anything about boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
certain rounds are close or at least semi close and i can see how you could score it for either fighter. the problem comes when you intentionally score every semi close round for the same fighter because of bias or influence even when the other fighter probably did better.
so for this fight, there is a range of scores which are acceptable and scoring 6 or more rounds for bute is unacceptable.
There are literally dozens and dozens of fights every year where you can make a case for either fighter depending on who was "favoured" by close rounds.
If the majority of people scored Pascal the winner then Pascal is the winner (IMO). But it's understandable without corruption or incompetence that people can find a different winner with a bunch of uncompetitive rounds with not a lot happening.
for example, lets take the martinez-chavez jr fight. it was clear that martinez was winning every round other than the last round. the only explanation that somebody could give in order to give chavez any of those rounds is that he came forward and was the aggressor. but if you watched the fight, that didnt matter because it was extremely ineffective and he obviously wasnt landing and was getting hit. so, if your reasoning for giving a round to a certain fighter is so basic and ridiculous, then you shouldnt be judging a fight. again, just like in the bute-pascal fight. pascal may have threw only in spurts, but he threw a few a round and landed while bute threw a punch once every 30 seconds which were usually ineffective.
my point is that you could always point to something to say that a certain fighter won the round but thats not how a round should be judged. it should be judged on who actually did better, not on anything else.
I don't think Martinez-Chavez jr is a good comparison for this fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherwhile i agree with your point altogether, i dont agree with it relating to the pascal-bute fight. i have scored fights in the past a draw or even for the fighter that i thought should have lost. this is pretty uncommon but it has happened. as i already stated though, some rounds cannot be disputed. so in the case of this fight, there werent more than 5 close rounds that could be given to bute (and that is being generous). the question is, at what point is a round a sure win for a fighter? obviously its up for the judges to decide, but if they cant do it competently then they shouldnt be judging.Quote:
Originally Posted by FensterThat is the problem though. If you acknowledge that a particular round is "close" you have to accept the possibility it can be scored either way. Therefore there's nothing wrong with scoring all the close rounds for one fighter. When you have to submit a score on a round by round basis there's the possibilty the "dominant" fighter comes out losing.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpunchermost fights have a range where scores are acceptable. for example, there is no way to score the fight a win for bute in a shutout. there were obvious rounds that he lost that it would be impossible to score for him. i would also say the same for the other side. bute clearly won the 12th round and there is no way that a judge should give it to pascal. this is because there is common sense in judging fights. certain rounds are just obvious to anybody who knows anything about boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
certain rounds are close or at least semi close and i can see how you could score it for either fighter. the problem comes when you intentionally score every semi close round for the same fighter because of bias or influence even when the other fighter probably did better.
so for this fight, there is a range of scores which are acceptable and scoring 6 or more rounds for bute is unacceptable.
There are literally dozens and dozens of fights every year where you can make a case for either fighter depending on who was "favoured" by close rounds.
If the majority of people scored Pascal the winner then Pascal is the winner (IMO). But it's understandable without corruption or incompetence that people can find a different winner with a bunch of uncompetitive rounds with not a lot happening.
for example, lets take the martinez-chavez jr fight. it was clear that martinez was winning every round other than the last round. the only explanation that somebody could give in order to give chavez any of those rounds is that he came forward and was the aggressor. but if you watched the fight, that didnt matter because it was extremely ineffective and he obviously wasnt landing and was getting hit. so, if your reasoning for giving a round to a certain fighter is so basic and ridiculous, then you shouldnt be judging a fight. again, just like in the bute-pascal fight. pascal may have threw only in spurts, but he threw a few a round and landed while bute threw a punch once every 30 seconds which were usually ineffective.
my point is that you could always point to something to say that a certain fighter won the round but thats not how a round should be judged. it should be judged on who actually did better, not on anything else.
Martinez wasn't just the far superior fighter against Chavez he threw over 900 punches. Chavez jr threw around 400. So that's 500 more punches than his opponent. That's a hell of a lot of extra stuff to catch a judges eye.
Pascal-Bute both threw just over 400 punches. They had completely different styles of throwing but an almost identical output.
So... what if you didn't think Pascal's spurts were very impressive or accurate? All of a sudden you have a man missing with his "spurts" against a man landing consistent, albeit ineffective, shots.
Remember... I'm not arguing against Pascal winning just saying I can understand why people saw a close fight.
arguing for a close fight on the scorecards is fine but arguing for bute winning is not IMO. again, you may say that pascals flurries werent that effective but a competent judge couldnt say that bute was being more effective in a majority of the rounds.
Swinging wildly and hoping something lands in a 10-15 punch flurry is NOT boxing. Not in my books!Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeYet again showing how you are unable to score a boxing matchQuote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
10-15 punches is being generous ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaSwinging wildly and hoping something lands in a 10-15 punch flurry is NOT boxing. Not in my books!Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeYet again showing how you are unable to score a boxing matchQuote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
hoping something lands doesnt count but landing punches does count. pascal landed some punches in his flurries. its not like he missed them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaSwinging wildly and hoping something lands in a 10-15 punch flurry is NOT boxing. Not in my books!Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeYet again showing how you are unable to score a boxing matchQuote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
do you think that throwing a few jabs and counter punches a round very timidly is boxing? Not in my books!
Then it all comes down to who has better form? By far it was Bute.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncherhoping something lands doesnt count but landing punches does count. pascal landed some punches in his flurries. its not like he missed them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaSwinging wildly and hoping something lands in a 10-15 punch flurry is NOT boxing. Not in my books!Quote:
Originally Posted by SilkeyjoeYet again showing how you are unable to score a boxing matchQuote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamaja
do you think that throwing a few jabs and counter punches a round very timidly is boxing? Not in my books!
it comes down who had better form? you mean when pascal landed quite a few clean punches in every round while bute rarely landed? that makes sense. do you love bute or do you hate pascal?
I like Pascal more than I like Bute. I always thought Bute was a hype to a great degree. But that fight with Pascal, to me, is un-resolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
The fight proved nothing. Pascal really didn't "win"... he got a decision. Big difference.
when you say he didnt "win," do you mean that he didnt prove that he was good? i dont mind that definition but when you get the decision then you do "win" the fight.