Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Our track announcer"........

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Our track announcer"........

    We've been bashing Tom Hammond for some time, now! But he's been THE voice of T&N in the US for 18 years, now. I've said this sometime ago, that the smooth-sounding, baritoned Hammond does appeal outside the sport!

    Last night, I saw the Women's College World Series (Champ Washington's gettin' some lights now! Maybe a warmup track--LOL!). Anyway, one of the commentators was John Kruk. Now, Kruk is nowhere near being an expert on Women's softball, but his 10 years in the majors, .300 career average, and busch-league voice and looks give him the appearance of one, especially to people like me who do not follow women's softball. Think about that, folk.

  • #2
    I think EVERYone is better served by an announcer who knows what s/he's talking about, than one who just sounds good. I find Hammond a detriment to TV track. Larry Rawson knows what he's talking about, even if his eccentricities get to some people. I regard Larry as my nutty uncle, who has his odd notions, but is a good ol' guy, who's company I enjoy. Carol? Not so much. Dwight, yes. Lewis Johnson is not a good interviewer. Ato Boldon, good.

    Comment


    • #3
      And to beat a dead horse (oh boy, do i wish ), Tom Hammond is a BAD man, as in :twisted: :evil: . It will be a happy day when he goes off and does horse racing (or whatever it is he does) full time.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Marlow
        Larry Rawson knows what he's talking about
        No.

        Comment


        • #5
          Larry has some knowledge, but he can't call a race to save his life. I have met him a couple times, and he seems like a nice guy. But hell, the captain of the Titanic was reportedly a nice guy :shock:

          Comment


          • #6
            I knew nothing about Hammond's background before these boards. To me he's a proficient announcer who doesn't significantly impact one's viewing experience (unless, perhaps, you have a bias against him).

            Rawson is no better than an announcing clown and has got to go. Being a good guy should never be allowed to supersede total incompetency.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Marlow
              I think EVERYone is better served by an announcer who knows what s/he's talking about, than one who just sounds good. I find Hammond a detriment to TV track. Larry Rawson knows what he's talking about, even if his eccentricities get to some people. I regard Larry as my nutty uncle, who has his odd notions, but is a good ol' guy, who's company I enjoy. Carol? Not so much. Dwight, yes. Lewis Johnson is not a good interviewer. Ato Boldon, good.
              I do believe that Dwight, Lewis and Ato offset Tom, "knowledge-wise". A play by play man has to have a broad appeal. Larry Rawson, as good as he is, doesn't have it!

              Howard Cosell was THE most hated personality in the history of sports. He had no sports background. The hatred of Cosell make Tom's experience look like a cakewalk. But damned if Howard didn't revolutionize the sportscasting profession, with almost EVERYONE in a broadcast booth or studio copping his style!!!!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by einnod23
                But damned if Howard didn't revolutionize the sportscasting profession, with almost EVERYONE in a broadcast booth or studio copping his style!!!!!!
                He wasn't the first to 'call it like he sees it', but he sure capitalized on being the Simon Cowell of his day. I agree that sportscasters are more likely to make the harsh criticism (Chris Collingsworth much?) now because of Howard. I still like the Fox NFL line-up of Terry, Howie and Jimmy best, cuz they aren't afraid to disagree with each other, vehemently.

                Comment


                • #9
                  with almost EVERYONE in a broadcast booth or studio copping his style!!!!!!

                  I'm thinkin Dandy Don never did

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Since my Gators were in the final round, I watched a lot of the WCWS. Kruk seems to know what he is talking about regarding women's softball. Not that I'm an expert. It almost seems like he has daughters in the game, so he has become a big fan. But I have no idea if he has any children.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Marlow
                      I think EVERYone is better served by an announcer who knows what s/he's talking about, than one who just sounds good. I find Hammond a detriment to TV track. Larry Rawson knows what he's talking about, even if his eccentricities get to some people. I regard Larry as my nutty uncle, who has his odd notions, but is a good ol' guy, who's company I enjoy. Carol? Not so much. Dwight, yes. Lewis Johnson is not a good interviewer. Ato Boldon, good.

                      Most of these people have to follow the guidelines that the network/channel believes will appeal to the viewers. That's why the fluffy "Up Close and Personal" crap. That's why nearly 1/2 of the time duration of the last lap of the women's Olympic 10,000 meter race was spent showing the ongoing reaction of the bronze medalist's mother.

                      [Show her AFTER the race; that's why God created video tape.]


                      The core problem is the dumbing down of the sport by the viewing media in this country. No one would ever THINK of doing anything but calling the play on the field in (American) football or on the court in basketball. No what Brett Favre had for breakfast, no LeBron James' favorite pets as training partners, etc. Who the hell cares! Show the goddamn game!!--is what you'd hear from Joe Sixpack.


                      If the sport were called as does the BBC (for the most part), if US viewers were treated as intelligent people watching a sports event, the standard of "track smarts" would rise among that viewership.

                      Why not try? The opposite sure hasn't worked for twenty-plus years now.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mike renfro
                        And to beat a dead horse (oh boy, do i wish ), Tom Hammond is a BAD man, as in :twisted: :evil: . It will be a happy day when he goes off and does horse racing (or whatever it is he does) full time.
                        I don't dislike Tom. I think he does an pretty good job. His job is to announce the proceedings. It is the color's job to bring the track knowledge and make it more interesting with insight. Could he do better? Sure, everyone involved could. It would be nice to have a distance guy in there to give some insights we rarely get.

                        Please expound on why you are calling him BAD, is there some things that have happened that I am not aware of?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Brian
                          Most of these people have to follow the guidelines that the network/channel believes will appeal to the viewers. That's why the fluffy "Up Close and Personal" crap. That's why nearly 1/2 of the time duration of the last lap of the women's Olympic 10,000 meter race was spent showing the ongoing reaction of the bronze medalist's mother.

                          [Show her AFTER the race; that's why God created video tape.]

                          The core problem is the dumbing down of the sport by the viewing media in this country. No one would ever THINK of doing anything but calling the play on the field in (American) football or on the court in basketball. No what Brett Favre had for breakfast, no LeBron James' favorite pets as training partners, etc. Who the hell cares! Show the goddamn game!!--is what you'd hear from Joe Sixpack.

                          If the sport were called as does the BBC (for the most part), if US viewers were treated as intelligent people watching a sports event, the standard of "track smarts" would rise among that viewership.

                          Why not try? The opposite sure hasn't worked for twenty-plus years now.
                          While I understand your points, the problem is this. In order to draw and keep average Joe, one HAS to do those up close segments. Most of the American public don't know who Tyson Gay is, and he is supposed to be America's best athlete! Viewers want to know the personality behind the athlete, and those up close and personals, while hated amongst hardcores, are well needed. I'll take Brian Clay playing fireman with his kids anyday, to get him more known to the public!

                          As for BBC, I've said this before....big, British, baritoned voices don't work in much of the USA. Big, baritoned American voices do!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by marknhj
                            I knew nothing about Hammond's background before these boards. To me he's a proficient announcer who doesn't significantly impact one's viewing experience (unless, perhaps, you have a bias against him).

                            Rawson is no better than an announcing clown and has got to go. Being a good guy should never be allowed to supersede total incompetency.
                            Instant visual - Rawson in a clown suit calling the races - LOL

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm not aware of Hammond having any background in track and field or any expertise at all in any sport except for horse racing.

                              All he has is network quality voice. NBC needed someone to call track and field and probably picked him by default.

                              That said, I have come to enjoy Tom doing track and field. I've dogged him on here in the past, but I think he has tried to learn about the sport and I think he brings some excitement to the TV coverage.

                              Who else are we going to get? The FloTrack guys?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X