Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by gh
    totally irrelevant; he brought genuine excitement to the race and one can ask no more of an announcer.
    True, but the race itself was very exciting. It would have been hard not to convey excitement during the last 300m of that race.

    Earlier in the race, the commentary about the time they were seeking to run and the pace they were setting during the race were completely off the mark. The analysis, if you want to call it that, was really poor.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.
      Let's be honest, Marlow..... you're the nutty uncle and he's you cousin!

      Seriously, I agree with your assessment, though I don't know if changing the announcer would really provide much of an increase in the appeal to the general public. I think the main problem is that most people don't find the sport itself interesting no matter how it's packaged and delivered.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Daisy
        He did? I saw it on NBC and don't remember his commentary, certainly nothing extraordinary. Is there a copy to review, as I don't have it recorded.
        http://tinyurl.com/kkt22j

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by gh
          Tom Hammond's call on the end of the men's 3000 drew rave-rave reviews, with somebody at my table saying, "There aren't many guys who can bring a race alive like that!" and Another saying, "Hammond really is a pro, isn't he?"
          I think they misperceived 'enthusiasm' for expertise. I'm glad he got excited when Lagat got rolling, but that's just showmanship. I'd rather have someone with a real understanding of the sport and the people in it.

          Comment


          • #35
            I think too much is being made of announcers at times. Hammond is great at calling races live.

            All announcers for most sports flubb facts, outside of Bob Costas. There are bigger fish to fry than worrying about EVERY announcer.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by knite
              I think too much is being made of announcers at times. Hammond is great at calling races live.

              All announcers for most sports flubb facts, outside of Bob Costas. There are bigger fish to fry than worrying about EVERY announcer.
              I agree that we may harp too much on this stuff, but I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect the in-booth "experts" (e.g., Johnson and Boldon) to have the same familiarity with the athletes in the race that I do. It's not that Hammonds didn't say Barringer's name until she had 80m to go - no one else did, either (fwiw, she was the ONLY person in the hunt for the last 1/3 of the race not wearing the yellow Nike singlet).

              Comment


              • #37
                Hammond's ok.

                He mentioned Shaheen earlier in the race although didn't mention his status.

                One issue is that the sport and message boards by their nature tend to result in nitpicking. The sport is very exacting and probably less prone to opinion than other professional sports.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Dutra
                  Hammond's ok.

                  He mentioned Shaheen earlier in the race although didn't mention his status.

                  One issue is that the sport and message boards by their nature tend to result in nitpicking. The sport is very exacting and probably less prone to opinion than other professional sports.
                  This is true (the nitpicking). One thing I notice of the better announcers of almost all sports is the ability to speak only when there is something relevant to say. There seems to be a need during track races to be talking non-stop, constantly analyzing intangibles like turnover, relaxation, etc., when often/most of the time the best strategy is to simply let the race unfold.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by KevinM
                    Originally posted by knite
                    I think too much is being made of announcers at times. Hammond is great at calling races live.

                    All announcers for most sports flubb facts, outside of Bob Costas. There are bigger fish to fry than worrying about EVERY announcer.
                    I agree that we may harp too much on this stuff, but I really don't think it's unreasonable to expect the in-booth "experts" (e.g., Johnson and Boldon) to have the same familiarity with the athletes in the race that I do. It's not that Hammonds didn't say Barringer's name until she had 80m to go - no one else did, either (fwiw, she was the ONLY person in the hunt for the last 1/3 of the race not wearing the yellow Nike singlet).
                    I do agree with the "total field assessment" of each race as it pertains to the entrants in each race. So with 3 personalities, someone should be able top pull some info out of the hat. This is where Rawson is good, but not outside of that as he is a bit too boring. I was actually asking the "tv" while the race was happeneing and wondering why no one hadn't said anything about Barringer. Quite possible its because outside of Rawson, who pays attention to collegiate T&F more than the others, that he can overlap the 2 levels an giev more info. They should keep him around as the "statistician" or sorts...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Dutra
                      I'm in Brian's corner as far as the way the sport should be televised.
                      So, Brian was able to convince some people with nothing else to do but be in a bar getting drunk in the middle of some random day to watch TV by talking too them. You probably could get the same crowd to watch ballet or a spelling bee. Drunk people in the middle of the day who get to be passively involved (watch TV) an finally have someone who will talk to them.........bravo, Brian, on your field research

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by knite

                        I do agree with the "total field assessment" of each race as it pertains to the entrants in each race. So with 3 personalities, someone should be able top pull some info out of the hat. This is where Rawson is good, but not outside of that as he is a bit too boring. I was actually asking the "tv" while the race was happeneing and wondering why no one hadn't said anything about Barringer. Quite possible its because outside of Rawson, who pays attention to collegiate T&F more than the others, that he can overlap the 2 levels an giev more info. They should keep him around as the "statistician" or sorts...
                        That's a good point about Rawson. He seems like he's up on the who's who of the sport and would be a better analyst if he stuck to that aspect of his announcing instead of "watching the leg turnover" and "go down to your local track" type of stuff.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by steve
                          Originally posted by Dutra
                          I'm in Brian's corner as far as the way the sport should be televised.
                          So, Brian was able to convince some people with nothing else to do but be in a bar getting drunk in the middle of some random day to watch TV by talking too them. You probably could get the same crowd to watch ballet or a spelling bee. Drunk people in the middle of the day who get to be passively involved (watch TV) an finally have someone who will talk to them.........bravo, Brian, on your field research
                          That's way too cynical. We've all had experiences like Brian's and can attest to the fact that "average" folks can take at least SOME interest in the sport, when encouraged or informed...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Honestly, I never watch a track meet with.... ANY EXPECTATIONS...about the commentators, this way, no let down for me.

                            I watch simply to see the athletes perform.
                            on the road

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Speedfirst
                              Honestly, I never watch a track meet with.... ANY EXPECTATIONS...about the commentators, this way, no let down for me.
                              I watch simply to see the athletes perform.
                              But . . . if you're not there in person, you have to rely on whatever the camera shows and sometimes it's just tiny little bodies in a group on the track, so we need GOOD commentators to apprise of of who is who and who is doing what. That's where we need someone who knows that a Willard or a Barringer or a Shaheen is a threat even though they are Steeplers.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Marlow
                                Originally posted by Speedfirst
                                Honestly, I never watch a track meet with.... ANY EXPECTATIONS...about the commentators, this way, no let down for me.
                                I watch simply to see the athletes perform.
                                But . . . if you're not there in person, you have to rely on whatever the camera shows and sometimes it's just tiny little bodies in a group on the track, so we need GOOD commentators to apprise of of who is who and who is doing what. That's where we need someone who knows that a Willard or a Barringer or a Shaheen is a threat even though they are Steeplers.
                                I agree to a certain extent, but really I'm speaking with respect to mistakes by the commentators that are brought forth.

                                Certainly one has to rely on the camera and different angles, since that is the case, again I'll watch with no expectations toward the commentators.
                                on the road

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X