Boxing commentary criticism isn’t new — fans have been shouting at their TVs for decades — but lately, it’s getting harder to ignore. From blatant bias to over-the-top hype and downright cringeworthy banter, many viewers are left wondering whether modern punditry is doing more harm than good.
Are They Watching the Same Fight as Us?
We’ve all been there. You’re watching a fight and one boxer is clearly landing the cleaner shots, managing distance, and dictating the tempo… yet the commentary team seem to be describing a completely different bout. This disconnect is one of the biggest gripes fans have with modern commentary.
Look at Sky Sports, for example. A platform that’s done a lot for British boxing, no doubt — but when one of their promoted fighters is in the ring, the bias is hard to miss. Johnny Nelson, a man I respect and who had a solid career, is often seen backing BOXXER fighters no matter how the fight’s actually unfolding. It’s not unique to Sky, either — over on DAZN, the same pattern plays out with Matchroom boxers.
The issue? Most pundits are either ex-fighters or have long-standing relationships with promoters and broadcasters. Can we really expect impartial commentary when their next job depends on keeping those same people happy?
Hype Over Substance
Another growing issue is the sheer amount of overhype. Every prospect is the “next big thing”. Every win is “dominant”, even when it’s razor-close. And let’s not forget the endless pushing of narratives — “he’s the future of the division” or “this is a world-level performance” gets tossed around like confetti at a wedding.
Take a look at DAZN’s coverage of some recent undercards. Fighters with padded records are talked up like they’re future Hall of Famers before they’ve fought anyone with a pulse. Sure, it sells fights — but it also misleads casual fans and undermines the credibility of the sport.
Banter, Bias, and Blunders
Boxing isn’t supposed to be stand-up comedy. So why do some commentary teams treat it like a night down the pub?
We’ve gone from informative breakdowns to awkward banter and pointless jokes. That’s not to say we want robotic analysis — but there’s a time and place for humour, and it shouldn’t come at the expense of actually calling the fight.
Then there are the blunders. Getting names wrong, misreading scorecards, and throwing out tactical nonsense — sometimes it feels like the commentary box needs its own training camp.
Should Ex-Fighters Always Get the Mic?
This one’s controversial. On the one hand, ex-fighters bring invaluable experience. They’ve been in the ring, they understand the mental and physical toll of the sport. But that doesn’t automatically make them good commentators.
There’s a huge difference between doing and explaining. Being able to break down footwork, explain game plans, and critique corner advice in real time is a skill — and not all ex-fighters have it.
Maybe it’s time to pair seasoned broadcasters or analysts with former pros, so we get the best of both worlds.
So, What’s the Fix?
We’re not saying all modern commentary is trash. There are good ones out there — Carl Frampton often gives thoughtful, honest takes. Andy Lee knows how to break down a fight without sounding like a cheerleader. But those voices are often drowned out by the noise.
Boxing fans deserve better. We want clear, honest analysis. We want excitement, yes — but not forced hype. And most of all, we want commentary that respects our intelligence.
What Do You Think?
Are we being too harsh, or does boxing need to clean up its commentary game? Drop your thoughts in the comments, share this post with your fellow fight fans, and have your say on CMBoxing.co.uk — where real fans keep the conversation honest.