Has anyone else noticed a bias in UFC commentary?
Mike Goldberg has a clear voice and knows the right questions to ask, which is necessary for directing commentating. Joe Rogan, love him or hate him (as it seems to be one or the other), knows his stuff when it comes to the ground game—Jiu-Jitsu.
But what about stand up/clinch? Maybe I'm alone on this one, but I find that it is greatly underrepresented. Joe leads the conversation as the "expert," but his focus resides on the ground.
During stand up he has very little in depth knowledge, or at least he doesn't express it. A knowledgeable patron of the striking game would for instance mention...the direction a fighter is circling: is he circling away from his opponents power hand? Is he inadvertently endangering himself? How is his stance going to help/inhibit him?
Instead we get Goldberg saying: "Nice right hand by _______". To which Rogan replies "He is sooooo powerful".
Or worse still, talking about something completely irrelevant while there is a pause in the action.
This isn't a "I hate Joe Rogan" rant, he's a colourful commentator whose very enthusiastic and knows his stuff concerning the ground game. I just think adding an expert in the striking game or all round MMA would help to offset the bias.
Good idea? Bad idea? Let me know.