Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Millrose TV

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Re: Millrose TV

    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Conor Dary
    I saw the coverage, and for one who has criticized in the past, I thought it was fine.
    Wow - and I thought I had plebian tastes. I watched it on my DVR. It was so bloated, it only took me about 25 minutes to go through the 2 hours, and that includes my own slo-mo replays.
    Ok, maybe I overstated my case, but I expect so little these days. Anyways, they showed the mile and the 600 and a few other events and having Tim Hutchings on was a plus. At least it was better than an NBA game where they take 20 minutes to play the last 10 seconds.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Millrose TV

      This may or not be relevant, but I am looking out my office window at MSG, probably 150m away, and I just couldn't be bothered to go to the meet this year. It wasn't the pricing ($15 for nosebleeds is fine - MSG doesn't have many bad seats), hassle of getting there (it's essentially on my way home), or a busy schedule (I went home and watched a movie with my wife) that kept me away. Honestly, I just thought that sitting around for 3-5 hours with so much dead time and so few events sounded boring.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Millrose TV

        [quote=Conor Dary]
        Originally posted by Marlow
        Originally posted by "Conor Dary":2vp51yos
        I saw the coverage, and for one who has criticized in the past, I thought it was fine.
        Wow - and I thought I had plebian tastes. I watched it on my DVR. It was so bloated, it only took me about 25 minutes to go through the 2 hours, and that includes my own slo-mo replays.
        Ok, maybe I overstated my case, but I expect so little these days. Anyways, they showed the mile and the 600 and a few other events and having Tim Hutchings on was a plus. At least it was better than an NBA game where they take 20 minutes to play the last 10 seconds. [/quote:2vp51yos]

        Yes.

        It's been said a million times before but: a) US TV coverage of track is inherently horrible, and it's long been a matter of "beggars can't be choosers"; and b) the Millrose Games are a faint, pathetic shadow of its former self. Thus: a + b = the issue at hand.

        To be a fan today, it is basically essential to be young & brimming with unwarranted optimism, or an old-timer with massive memory loss. I'm working on the latter, but am not fully there yet. In fact, I'm positively cursed with a vivid memory of what the indoor circuit was like in the late 60s and early 70s--with, to name merely one thing, those fantastic 600y matchups with Lee Evans, Martin McGrady, Larry James, etc.

        But the sport of that era is gone forever and no amount of wailing, moaning, or spitting into the wind will bring it back.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Millrose TV

          Originally posted by kuha
          I'm positively cursed with a vivid memory of what the indoor circuit was like in the late 60s and early 70s--with, to name merely one thing, those fantastic 600y matchups with Lee Evans, Martin McGrady, Larry James, etc.
          Zackly. With all the advances across the board in T&F, we can't even EQUAL that!
          Plus the PV battles were epic, going far into the night, with a WR possibly in the making! I don't think it's just my deteriorating and nostalgic mind that remembers 'more at stake' back then.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Millrose TV

            Originally posted by gh
            Originally posted by Walt Murphy
            Really? The only elite race not shown was the men's 2-mile, and that was because the field fell apart due to scratches(the winning time was 8:48).
            That being the case, then I'd say the letter writer has IDed why tickets aren't selling anymore: a lack of substance. He probably assumed there were another dozen top-flight pro events that didn't get shown, like in the old days.

            8 races and 2 field events does not a true Millrose make. Not at NYC prices.
            It's obviously my personal bias, but what I miss most are all the intermediate races. In the old days, between the dash and the mile, the men would have a 440, 500, 600, 800, and 1000. Now only the 600 is left. Also, the dash and hurdles would have three trial heats each, and the 2 mile would have about twenty guys in it and be held every year. I understand the economics but it is still sad.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Millrose TV

              Originally posted by Conor Dary
              I saw the coverage, and for one who has criticized in the past, I thought it was fine. It was live, and as for splits, what a stupid comment. I mean it is an 11 lap track. Times are slower already, but if you watch the clock and pay attention to the laps, it wasn't very hard to get a sense of how fast they were going.
              What clock? I agree that individual lap splits would only appeal to a mathematician. What I would like to have seen would be 400 meter splits; there were officials on the track holding up such digital signs, but the signs weren't visible to most of the crowd and the track announcer didn't call them out on a regular basis. I would like to have had the 400, 800, 1200, etc meter marks identified (by an official holding up a sign--someone right next to the guy holding up the digital clock for the runners benefit) and also a running time on the scoreboard in order to calculate how far back any particular runner was from the leader. Guess I'd better bring my stopwatch next year.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Millrose TV

                For the Wannamaker Mile, they showed the quarter splits on the scoreboard.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Millrose TV

                  Originally posted by Halfmiler2
                  For the Wannamaker Mile, they showed the quarter splits on the scoreboard.
                  Really? At that point I must have given up looking for them; or maybe the race was so intriguing that I didn't want to look up

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Millrose TV

                    I agree the TV coverage was actually better than usual (which is a very low bar) and Hutchins is a welcome addition. 9 track and 3 field events(counting the multieventers twice) is a poor man's elite meet. Even most of those events were very thin in number of actual elite competitors.
                    There is a limited number of elite athletes who compete indoors and most of them compete in Europe. Boston Indoor has had the best fields in the US for the last decade. With this year's last minute sponsorship change the international stars are largely absent there too.
                    After Millrose, I went to Lindy's across the street for cheesecake and memories. The rumor among my friends was that it would be the last year at Millrose (but that has been a recurrent rumor). We were remembering the number of events, the depth of the fields and the quality of the performances.
                    As we left we walked by a framed picture of Carl Lewis in midflight at a Millrose long jump. We are unlikely to see a Millrose performance like that again.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Millrose TV

                      other than ato boldon, i hit the mute button when listening to american tv track coverage...

                      espn is basically going the route they did with soccer, going with the brits, who basically know that game...

                      when i catch eurosport or any european coverage, it's a pleasure to see the difference in quality of presentation

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Millrose TV

                        Originally posted by az2004
                        espn is basically going the route they did with soccer, going with the brits, who basically know that game...
                        That (Brit T&F commentators being better) is such a fallacy! Brits SOUND better calling the action ( ), but they KNOW it no better than we do. As for footie, there are plenty of Americans (on Fox Soccer Channel, f'rinstance) who do a great job. The 'average' Brit fan understands the game better, but when you get to the top, they are interchangeable.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Millrose TV

                          espn not fox soccer channel...

                          espn sucks when americans do soccer...

                          the avergae brit grew up with the game, KNOWS what's going on out there, anticipates what players are trying to do..

                          the average american is clueless about what's going on on the pitch...

                          ah, wonder why NO FIELD player is on a big club, because usa skill level is piss poor...

                          tom hammonds, give him a photo of some track person, he'll not know who it is...

                          and the presentation of the product...

                          ian darke's call of usa-algeria was brilliant, he anticipated well...

                          the espn spoilation of american sports by mindless highlights has created a geneartion of dumb sports fans..

                          and that includes presentation of track on tv

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Millrose TV

                            It doesn't help when Track and Field is a niche sport in the United States. Track and Field doesn't have an American born Superstar that the average sports fan knows about. If anything, the United States is superstar driven when it comes to sports. The NFL, MLB and NBA have the most recognizable sports names in the country, both past and present. The NHL has Canadian born Sidney Crosby. Some of the lesser sports even have that superstar that people recognize unlike with track and field. Golf has Tiger Woods of course. Tennis has the Swiss born Roger Federer, the Spanish born Rafael Nadal and the Americans, Venus and Serena Williams. Swimming has Michael Phelps. Snowboarding has Shaun White. NASCAR has names like Jimmie Johnson, Carl Edwards and Tony Stewart. Skiing has Lindsey Vonn.

                            You ask the casual sports fan to name 5 American track athletes, they'll most likely name the former Track stars of the past such as Flo Jo, Marion Jones, Carl Lewis and Michael Johnson. Maybe Jackie Joyner Kersee and Dan O'Brien. They might be able to name Usain Bolt, but Bolt doesn't have much of a presence in the United States at this moment.

                            As talented as the likes of Jeremy Wariner, David Oliver, Dwight Phillips, Sanya Richards and Allyson Felix are, nobody outside the track world has any idea who they are (well, people might know Sanya as the wife of NY Giants DB Aaron Ross, but that's it). That needs to change.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Millrose TV

                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              Originally posted by az2004
                              espn is basically going the route they did with soccer, going with the brits, who basically know that game...
                              That (Brit T&F commentators being better) is such a fallacy! Brits SOUND better calling the action ( ), but they KNOW it no better than we do. As for footie, there are plenty of Americans (on Fox Soccer Channel, f'rinstance) who do a great job. The 'average' Brit fan understands the game better, but when you get to the top, they are interchangeable.
                              Yes and No. Having listened to sports commentary on both sides of the pond for years, the Brits on average are far superior. And it has nothing to do with accents. Listening to David Coleman, Stuart Storey and in particular Peter Matthews really adds to the broadcast. Now mind you there are some lousy UK announcers, Brendan Foster being Example A. He is truly awful.

                              On the US side, we do have Dwight Stones, who I think is one of the best analysts in the field events, and is getting better in the running events.

                              We use to do a much better job. Listening to old youtube broadcasts, Larry Rawson, really did a good job back in the old days, unlike his recent telecasts. Also Bill Toomey wasn't bad either.

                              Actually this is nothing new, we have discussed this at least half a dozen times before.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X