Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • einnod23
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Originally posted by Spickard
    ....
    If calling an event intelligently and expecting something from your audience doesn't work, then why has Tour de France coverage on Versus become so popular? Oh, wait, those are British voices too.

    Versus took a chance that people might actually want to look into this thing (cycling) if we simply broadcast it intelligently. Despite the doping, despite the four hour event (every night, practically!) despite the British voices and the prevalence of so many skinny non-Americans, people are tuning in. It's not going to get NFL ratings, but it's doing much better than track, and it's doing it BECAUSE of the way it's being broadcast.

    THIS CAN WORK FOR TRACK TOO! WHERE IS OUR PHIL LIGGETT?
    This is soooo much a matter of taste. I remember a couple of years back we had a thread in praise of Liggett so I tuned in to the Tour (or something) to give a critical listen and I was left absolutely cold. Thought he brought nothing to the proceedings that was appealing (other than for Americans who like Masterpiece Theater because of the "class" that a Britsh accent has.)
    In all fairness to the Brits, I remember the BBC Documentary on Ohio State football in 1978, which was OUTSTANDING. You had the big, "BBC accent" (I forgot the narrator's name, great job), getting a de Tocqevilleian perspective on American football, and insight into the great Woody Hayes, THE cussin' coach of the Buckeyes!!!!!!!

    As for the Tour de France, remember the 80s, when big, American baritone John Tesh brought to life the Greg Lamond/Bernard Hinault rivalry???? Hate him all you want, but Tesh single-handedly got CBS great ratings!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Spickard
    ....
    If calling an event intelligently and expecting something from your audience doesn't work, then why has Tour de France coverage on Versus become so popular? Oh, wait, those are British voices too.

    Versus took a chance that people might actually want to look into this thing (cycling) if we simply broadcast it intelligently. Despite the doping, despite the four hour event (every night, practically!) despite the British voices and the prevalence of so many skinny non-Americans, people are tuning in. It's not going to get NFL ratings, but it's doing much better than track, and it's doing it BECAUSE of the way it's being broadcast.

    THIS CAN WORK FOR TRACK TOO! WHERE IS OUR PHIL LIGGETT?
    This is soooo much a matter of taste. I remember a couple of years back we had a thread in praise of Liggett so I tuned in to the Tour (or something) to give a critical listen and I was left absolutely cold. Thought he brought nothing to the proceedings that was appealing (other than for Americans who like Masterpiece Theater because of the "class" that a Britsh accent has.)

    Leave a comment:


  • mrbowie
    replied
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with Tom Hammond. He is smooth, looks fine and has a very pleasing sound to his voice. He does his job admirably.

    Dwight is awesome and Ato is refreshing.

    The rest need to be sent packing.

    There has to be some female out there that can add something to the mix that was not an athlete herself, but knows a lot about the sport. There is one out there, believe me. Every sport has one.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    What ever happened to announcing candidate, former miler?
    http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... hp?p=90012

    Leave a comment:


  • einnod23
    replied
    Originally posted by Spickard
    Originally posted by Brian
    Originally posted by einnod23
    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!
    If calling an event intelligently and expecting something from your audience doesn't work, then why has Tour de France coverage on Versus become so popular? Oh, wait, those are British voices too.

    Versus took a chance that people might actually want to look into this thing (cycling) if we simply broadcast it intelligently. Despite the doping, despite the four hour event (every night, practically!) despite the British voices and the prevalence of so many skinny non-Americans, people are tuning in. It's not going to get NFL ratings, but it's doing much better than track, and it's doing it BECAUSE of the way it's being broadcast.

    THIS CAN WORK FOR TRACK TOO! WHERE IS OUR PHIL LIGGETT?
    I would love to see the ratings now, with British voices on Versus, a network many households still don't have, versus back in the early 80s, when the hated John Tesh did the play by play on CBS!!!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Spickard
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian
    Originally posted by einnod23
    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!
    If calling an event intelligently and expecting something from your audience doesn't work, then why has Tour de France coverage on Versus become so popular? Oh, wait, those are British voices too.

    Versus took a chance that people might actually want to look into this thing (cycling) if we simply broadcast it intelligently. Despite the doping, despite the four hour event (every night, practically!) despite the British voices and the prevalence of so many skinny non-Americans, people are tuning in. It's not going to get NFL ratings, but it's doing much better than track, and it's doing it BECAUSE of the way it's being broadcast.

    THIS CAN WORK FOR TRACK TOO! WHERE IS OUR PHIL LIGGETT?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by marknhj
    Originally posted by Gordon18
    The worst commentator i have heard is that Carol Lewis.
    There is a worse one, Lewis' partner on the Universal online feeds last year. Can't recall his name, but he makes both Lewis and Rawson sound like consummate broadcasting professionals....
    I remember him, Randy Doerges, totally clueless about the sport, kept asking inane questions and kept going one about the medals they were winning in the grandprix events. From the link below he seems to have connections with horse racing too.

    http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Doerges_ ... 79613.aspx

    Leave a comment:


  • marknhj
    replied
    Originally posted by Gordon18
    The worst commentator i have heard is that Carol Lewis.
    There is a worse one, Lewis' partner on the Universal online feeds last year. Can't recall his name, but he makes both Lewis and Rawson sound like consummate broadcasting professionals....

    Leave a comment:


  • Gordon18
    replied
    The worst commentator i have heard is that Carol Lewis. She makes mistakes a lot and shows her bias while commentating. i even remember one time when she mistook Brian Zingeay?? for John Capel

    Leave a comment:


  • mike renfro
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by KevinM
    Rawson ran for Boston College in the early 60s, winning a New England Championship and anchoring a Penn DMR winner.
    http://bceagles.cstv.com/genrel/rawson_larry00.html
    Why did I think he was a steeplechaser? So his best result was a 4:07 mile?
    I think it was because he used to describe how smacking a barrier would ruin your whole day. I, too, assumed that he was speaking from experience.

    Leave a comment:


  • einnod23
    replied
    Originally posted by KevinM
    On a positive note, I seem to remember enjoying Ian Eagle doing the play-by-play for the NCAA meet last year. Hopefully CBS is using Eagle and Boldon again this weekend.
    Seems like those Newhouse guys are a natural. Glickman went to Syracuse before there was a Newhouse School there, but......

    .....Oops, let me shut my mouth before someone mentions Costas's quadrenial Olympic bone-headedness!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob H
    replied
    Originally posted by cigar95
    Originally posted by Bob H
    I don't recall there being much loosening in '84, but I think the process had started by Seoul.
    Bob, although LA is the only Games I have attended, what I recall is that prior to an event, the introduction of any present world record holders and World and Olympic champions was something new.
    I had been to three Olympic games before LA (as well as the World Championships in Helsinki the year before and three IAAF World Cups). I'm pretty sure that those introductions were permitted before LA. But back then, those were the only credentials that one could mention. That started to change after 1984.

    Leave a comment:


  • cigar95
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob H
    I don't recall there being much loosening in '84, but I think the process had started by Seoul.
    Bob, although LA is the only Games I have attended, what I recall is that prior to an event, the introduction of any present world record holders and World and Olympic champions was something new. (If I wanted to dig out my 25 year old T&FN, I have vague memories of GH commenting on this.)

    I also recall seeing a very abbreviated scoring table (one or two scores) for the deca 1500 on the scoreboard, prior to that event getting underway, pointed out by Dr. Z, that probably meant very little to anyone not aware of Thompson's standing vis-a-vis the WR. My vague memory is that Frank was able to direct our attention to the existence of the table, but not to explain its significance.

    Since then, of course, announcers have gradually been given more and more to say. I get the impression that now they're doing nearly full race calls - in three different languages, somehow.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by KevinM
    Originally posted by Marlow
    It can't hurt, as a commentator.
    We have plenty of announcers with elite experience. Rawson could have run 10 seconds faster and it wouldn't add to his announcing skills unless those ten seconds also magically gave him the ability to name every runner correctly.
    You're right. I just 'like' it better when a commentator has an analytical insight and I feel that they actually experienced what they're talking about. I was watching SportsCenter the other night and a pleasant 20-something lady analyst came on with some very good commentary. She (I guess it could have been the teleprompter writer) had some good insights, but part of me was wondering whether she really understood the things she was talking about at a visceral level.
    Did people like Peter Matthews, Lennart Julin, or Roberto Quercetani have any serious competitive experience in T&F?

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by KevinM
    Originally posted by Marlow
    It can't hurt, as a commentator.
    We have plenty of announcers with elite experience. Rawson could have run 10 seconds faster and it wouldn't add to his announcing skills unless those ten seconds also magically gave him the ability to name every runner correctly.
    You're right. I just 'like' it better when a commentator has an analytical insight and I feel that they actually experienced what they're talking about. I was watching SportsCenter the other night and a pleasant 20-something lady analyst came on with some very good commentary. She (I guess it could have been the teleprompter writer) had some good insights, but part of me was wondering whether she really understood the things she was talking about at a visceral level. Maybe. I am NOT one of those who feel you must have done it at the elite level (or even at all) to comment on it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X