Via atrios - let me predicate this by saying I have always believed, and continue to believe, that Jim Lampley is kind of an idiot. I have watched many, many HBO fights with Lampley at ringside doing color, and I find him to be at best annoying and at worst a great detriment to my understanding of the fight.
Any serious boxing fan knows that when you watch a fight seriously, in order to determine what you think is the correct scoring, you have to turn the sound off. The reason for that is that no matter how strong-willed you are, the three guys in the booth will bias your interpretation of the fight.
I have watched many Lampley-commented fights in my life both with and without the commentary, and I have to say Lampley skews my viewing of a fight the most of any commentator I've encountered. His problem is one that Bob Costas also has - he has a subconscious need to make every single moment he experiences to seem like the greatest moment in the history of sports.
I say this as a caveat to the post I am about to link to, because I think it's possible that Lampley is overstating the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from the evidence currently available about Election 2004. However, having said all this, I will also say that what I have always liked about Lampley, and what most people like about him I think, is that he is willing to say what he thinks even when it might get him in trouble.
Which this very well might.
The one reason I will always respect Jim Lampley comes to mind here - at the end of Lewis-Holyfield I, a fight in which Lewis dominated and embarrassed Evander over 12 fairly boring (and easy to score) rounds, the judges' decision was announced as a draw. The generally accepted attitude for a sportscaster in that situation is puzzlement, perhaps tinged with skepticism.
Not Jim Lampley. "Lennox Lewis has just been robbed," he said.
Indeed, he was robbed.