Fighters like Roy, paulie and tarver are the only commentators worth listening to while watching a fight. Listening to guys that haven't even fought themselves is almost as bad as reading NSB, with some of the things those guys say. Note I said almost :lol1:
George foreman is the only fighter-commentator who wasn't that good. He's just a bit of a strange dude and would always make some bizarre observation that half the time wasn't even relevant. But even then sometimes he made an astute observation.
Foreman is the best, he is the Bill Walton of boxing commentary.
Max Kellerman is an ATG Analyst/commentator
I'm kidding , don't stone me to death .
I voted Pauly , he has more enthusiasm in his speech. He could talk about using dogshyt as sunblock and I would go try it out.
Jones was great in his prime, but as he gets older and his mental reflexes slow, some basic flaws are starting to show. He speaks a little slower now, and sometimes even trips over his own words, and he's been countered on points by guys he would have made look foolish in his prime.
He's just not what he once was, and I think it's because he doesn't quite have the fundamental skills of a learned commentator, but just relied on his quick wit and sharp tongue. Now that they are slowing, he seems to struggle to form fast thoughts in combination as he once did.
Paulie has shown me some things that I didn't think he once had. When I first heard him, I thought that he was just another fast talker, but with no real substance to his thoughts or power in his voice. He seemed to just rely on some quick one liners to peck away and counter Bernstein, without being able to back it up with any powerful well formed points in combination to stagger the listener. However, he's been in with the big guns, and shown that he can pull through with his quick analysis and fast thoughts, despite not having the power of a big voice like some other guys. He's really grown on me and I see him doing really well in the future if his brittle voice can stand the punishment of long, hard nights at the microphone.
Ward, well, I'm not convinced just yet. He's been sitting out of too many big commentator spots recently, and has only been showing up commentating in a couple of smaller fights recently, despite showing some great skills and being able to counter with some sharp, well formed puns and points. Some people say that he refuses to leave his home network of HBO to travel to a wider audience, but I just don't see a market for him outside of his home network.
He does have a tendency to drawl out some slow lines which can leave the listener feeling a bit bored, and doesn't always engage in exciting verbal exchanges with his other commentators, but seems to prefer to grab hold of a point and just smother it. He also seems to use his head a lot in his commentating, which some people say is the sign of a veteran commentator, while others find it a bit offensive in a blow by blow analyst when they expect a bit more passion and verbal warfare.
I'd go with Paulie,it's his voice and energy..Yet I think both break down the sport really well..I think Ward is the 3rd best commentator on any network..Behind Bernstein and Paulie..
You're right.
Impartiality is not really their thing.
not that. too hyper to mix with the also hyper kellerman plus lampley. paulie would fit with the laid back commentating over at showtime.
I like both, neither one more then the other. For those that don't think Ward is good at commentating you're in luck, he won't be fighting anyone anytime soon so he'll get lots of practice to live up to your standards. :lol1:
Ward commentating is like listening to the guy from the Clear Eyes commercial. He has good insight but is just too bland to listen too. Paulie is animated and exciting to listen too along with him pointing out important insight during the fight.
why am i not surprised? :lol1:
uhhhmmmm.. i don't.. uhhmmmmm.. like uhmmmm kno.. uuhmmmm know? :dunno:
seriously though, how y'all gonna say a dude with a freaking speech impediment is this great commentator? why not just get paul williams in there know im sayin'?
]im probably in the minority but i really like wards commentary. he makes good observations and focuses on the fight itself providing excellent technical and strategic input on the action.
paulie does too, just to a lesser extent. but paulie is a better talker in general which obviously adds to his ability to commentate. overall i would give a slight edge to ward just because im starting to grow real tired of paulie going "uhmm" 3583957658592 times a broadcast.
why am i not surprised? :lol1:
paulie isn't just better, he's much better. he's the best expert commentator in boxing.
honestly, he's one of the best i've ever heard call a fight. the guy was a very good fighter, but he's going to be a great, maybe even hall of fame broadcaster.
im probably in the minority but i really like wards commentary. he makes good observations and focuses on the fight itself providing excellent technical and strategic input on the action.
paulie does too, just to a lesser extent. but paulie is a better talker in general which obviously adds to his ability to commentate. overall i would give a slight edge to ward just because im starting to grow real tired of paulie going "uhmm" 3583957658592 times a broadcast.
They both seem very good to me but I voted for Ward. I don't like to watch Ward fight but he seems like a very good, intelligent clear commentator and he doesn't talk your ears off. I prefer both of them to Lampley who does not seem to know much about boxing even though he thinks he does. Lampley will always be happy to talk your ears off right in the middle of a good fight. I find him an annoying distraction.