Jim Lampley Quotes

You're trying too hard.

 

i'm just explaining the quote to the FIN

 

Thanks. I still believe though that Lampley tried to make a play of words the way Jake suggested but mixed it up and the result was not what he meant

 

Mills Lane Promoted the Hamed-Barrera Fight & he was Obviously Willing to Do WHATEVER to Appease the Prince...The Promoter Pays the Ring Announcer, Thus Buffer Said what he Said....

Nonetheless, REED Doesn't Get why Anybody Would B OFFENDED By the Islamic Chants OR Why Lamps would Bend Over Backwards to Make a "Funny" @ the Expense of Hamed's God of Choice....

REED:hammert:

 

You don't? It's self-evident. It was funny as hell. Hamed's in ring praises to Allah were aggressive and imposing. Lampley's instincts as a broadcaster kicked in and the joke he made resonated widely.

 

seems like a lot of observers who think Oscar won that fight were similarly swayed:giggle:

 

80% of the public is retarded

Barrera won that fight 115-113 on my card

And Morales literally landed about 5 right hands, no matter what Jim Lampley yelled

 

Getting excited when Lampley says "Tale of the Tape" is about the event and suspense leading up to it. Often you can hear the crowd starting to cheer and the ring walks are about to begin. Personally, I'm already usually hyped by then. That begins for me when the national anthem is being sung and they show the fighters in their dressing rooms while this is going on (which is usually before Tale of the Tape).

 

How HBO justify keeping a guy on their payroll via unofficial score-cards and "tales of the tape" is beyond me. Fire that German cunt and knock $10 off everyone's PPV price.

 

Lampley is biased, but I really feel like anyone who is swayed by him is a pretty weak minded individual, or (to borrow a REED-ism that I always loved) is as Clueless as Alicia Silverstone.

And hell I thought Whitaker beat Oscar as well, but he lost the fight by not doing enough and at least Oscar was trying to make the fight happen even if he couldn't hit Whitaker with a handful of rice. What else was there to get excited about in the "fight?" Especially if you are the ringside commentator. Whitaker could have won that fight outright and he blew it. I say fuck him.

 

+1

Reed is failing to note the distinction between having religious beliefs and imposing those beliefs in an unacceptable fashion. Hamed had the pedigree of a fucking alley cat when it came to manners and that trend continued until he eventually did jail time for it.

 

Which fight is that? The 2nd one?

Morales clearly won that one.

 

It's not about whether you're swayed by Lampley's call of a fight...it's noise pollution regardless.

 

I think that is one of the harder fights I've scored, round by round.

The narration of the fight sides with Morales, because Barrera began the fight much more passively, and didnt really switch gears until Morales turned his back mistaking the ten second warning for the end of the round ("how dare he!", Lampley exclaimed, as he was finally able to cheer for Barrera).

 

Best commentator in boxing

 

So I've read.

 

no he didnt

 

I thought it was a robbery....payback for the first fight...which I thought Morales won too (but that was closer...and most people saw Barrera getting it). Barrera clearly won the third fight though.

 

Ian Darke is better

 

What i like about Lampley, is that he speaks his own mind....he doesn't just echo what the 'experts' sitting next to him opine (british fight fans....Adam Smith)...and he'll tell them if he disagrees. But sometimes, he goes too far and you'd wish he'd just call the fight.

I like Darke....sometimes you feel he's having to reign in his own view more than he'd like to. I always get a sense when he disagrees with whoever is next to him, but I don't think he's allowed the freedom to bring a Sky 'expert's opinion into question.

Testatore is very good.....hopefully one day he gets a shot at the big time.

 

Reg Gutteridge was the worst and most boring commentator of them all. Listening to his broadcasts was like enduring waterboarding. He was especially bad with Jim Watt at his side.

 

IMO a very clear, but distant, second

 

the fact you thought Morales won that first fight and the second tells me you must use a different criteria for scoring than I do

 

MAB fought the second fight not to lose. He had none of the fight in him he'd had in the first. He clearly lost the fight.

Morales was more active in the first, and controlled the pace, save for MAB's spurts. I too think Morales won the first.

 

word.

As I've said before...the way you score the first Morales-MAB fight is teh way you scored the 5th round of that fight...as the 5th round is a microcosm of the entire fight.

I scored round 5 for Morales. He controlled over 2/3 of that round with activity and agression. Barrera stuns him in the last 30-40 seconds of that round..and looked to almost drop morales...and that's why many give Barrera the round.

The entire fight was like that...Morales with teh activity...Barrera stunning him in spurts of action.


As for the 2nd Barrera-Morales fight....the way you score that fight is likely the way you'd score DLH-Mosley 2. Same kinda fights. Do you score for teh one who was controlling the ring and had more activity...or do you score for the guy who you think caused a little more damage?

I went the first way both times.

 

I scored the 5th for Morales and the fight to Barrera by 4. :::Thumbs:

Think I scored the rematch even.

 

That's a much different fight than I saw, even if you give MAB credit for the "knockdown".

 

I didn't.

 

really eh? You're an exception to the rule then. Most people who scored teh fight for MAB gave him the 5th round.

 

Okay, so you scored it for MAB by 4, even though you didn't give him credit for the knockdown or score the 5th for him.

I think we did see different fights.