Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bislett coverage

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Bislett coverage

    Good news: no blathering commentary
    Bad news: old news
    Good news: more event coverage
    Bad news: no interviews
    Good news: Rawson is knowledgable
    Bad news: one-dimensional coverage

    conclusion: better than nothing, gotta be a tafnut to appreciate

    grade: B

  • #2
    Re: Bislett coverage

    Was the Bislett the one that was on today? I didn't watch it because I needed to ride the bike.

    Was there any throws coverage?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bislett coverage

      The men's javelin was the only one contested, with Henry, Lusis's son and Makarov. The coverage was brief but adequate. Makarov looks lots quicker than the others. The distance races got good play, men and women.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bislett coverage

        I hope they can fix those audio problems. As mentioned, it was good to see lots of action, but I did miss the interviews and other "on-site" perspectives, and it was nice we didn't see any of the false starts. However, there was too much Larry Rawson. He kept babbling about how "all you youngsters out there...". Where was Dwight for some field expertise??

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bislett coverage

          Yeah, it was good to see a lot of races, but it was very difficult to hear/understand Rawson at times. Unfortunately, it was dated news, especially with the Paris meet having taken place on Friday. I understand how it was still too close from the US Championships for hardly any Americans to show, but still sad not to see many of them competing. I am afraid there will be the same void for next weeks meet. I think it is obvious the Golden league has to do a bit more re-vamping to attract all of the best athletes. GL loses it's luster without stars like Allen Johnson competing in all the meetings, or at least until they are kknocked out of the running. TV worldwide needs guys like that to help get (keep) viewers.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bislett coverage

            After 35+ years of watching track on TV (and I've never sent a comment to T&FN or e-mail before), I would have to say that today's Bislett coverage was one of the worst shows I've ever seen. Live coverage with horrible (read Carol Lewis) commentary is preferable to the canned coverage ESPN2 showed today. I do not fault Larry Rawson; no one can watch a tape, comment on it from 3000 miles away, and make the result at all interesting. Yeah, I loved seeing the W5000 get so many minutes, but such a great race seemed lifeless to me. And I've seen TV races where I knew the results beforehand, so don't feed me that as an excuse. If you told me ahead of time I'd see 3 javelin throws, too, I'd be ejaculating at the thought, but the actual showing lacked any sense of competition (in fairness, most U.S. TV field events usually do, but Dwight at least adds some excitement in his limited chances). And the W1500 was like watching a Russian/Ukrainian test pattern.
            Some of the previous posters don't seem to realize that ESPN had Larry Rawson at a studio (Bristol CT???) adding commentary/voiceovers to the week-old feed from Bislett. That's why you got no interviews, crowd noise, etc. And ESPN
            denigrated track so much as to not even let Dwight in the studio this year. I'm assuming Walt Murphy was there to give info, since Rawson stated a few facts there's no way he'd know anything about otherwise.
            In short, this coverage was like going down to your local high school football field and hearing the 68 year-old play-by-play announcer describe last week's game from the scouting film. Oh yeah, Mr. Rawson, 280'10" is approx. 93 2/3 yards, not 97 yards, no matter where you throw that baseball. Some previous posters have wondered whether no coverage is better than poor coverage. My opinion is, for super-fans like me, it's marginally better (only because of W5000 coverage), but no coverage is better than the Bislett coverage for attracting any additional fans to track & field. And, Walt, I've had undying admiration for your work and dedication (and still do) for over 30 years, but you tarnish your reputation by defending this trash. Keep doing your best to make the shows better; I know all the future Golden League meets will be covered the same way; but, Walt, please do the honorable thing and resign if the network has Larry Rawson cover the Worlds from the studio.
            Jim Rorick

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bislett coverage

              After reading Roger's reply, I can truly say that I was glad I missed it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bislett coverage

                Actually, it wasn't a bad show! The women's 5000 got lots of minutes, as did the 1500. For once we didn't get a whole commercial-to-commercial segment watching hurdlers stand in the blocks. The show had pace, it showed more than highlights of a distance race -- and I couldn't figure out what the "audio difficulties" were. I don't need interviews, I need as many minutes of as many races as possible. I'd say this was an improvement!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bislett coverage

                  I have to agree with the original "better than nothing" assessment, but disagree with "no interviews" being considered "bad news." I think interviews eat up time that could be better spent showing more events in the limited windows afforded to t&f on TV, and provide utterly worthless information. Typical interview:

                  Q: How do you feel about your victory/defeat?
                  A: I feel great/terrible, Dwight.

                  Q: What was your strategy?
                  A: Well, I was trying to run/throw/jump faster/higher/further, Dwight. I've been working on good form.

                  Is this information that anyone out there in TV land couldn't have guessed beforehand. And I'm saying this as a (print) journalist who occasionally covers track myself. I get the interviews myself because it spices up the print medium (a little, although the commentary is just as uninsightful on the printed page). But who needs it when you're actually seeing the event?

                  Of course, I had the best Bislett coverage you can possibly get -- I was actually at the event! (Eat your heart out; Oslo is beautiful.) Lack of interviews didn't bother me a bit. :-)
                  "Run fast and keep turning left."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bislett coverage

                    It wasn't the post race interviews I missed so much, but rathr the pre-race interviews that give you some insight about the training, personality and state of mind of the athletes. From week to week, "things" happen, such as distractions, minor injuries, etc..., that may otherwise not be revealed to the casual viewr.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bislett coverage

                      The thing about this season's Golden League broadcasts, is that there is no real need for any pre-race interviews, since the material is so dated. The Oslo meet was a great case in point. We knew the results and read all of post-race comments not long after the conclusion of the meet. In years past, I know we never saw the Golden League meets live, but it seemed there was only a 1-2 day delay. This time, it was a more than a week. Everyone knew the all the particulars, and we even had another Golden League meet under our belts from Paris. Yes, any track on tv is good, but having it on in a timely manner is crucial. Nonethless, I think interviews add to a broadcasts, regardless if there is a quick turn around or not. They add to the importance of the event, and gives an athlete a chance to respond to a any current developements, why they may or may not be running in that meet, and it gives an athlete a chance to express his/her opinions. That is stuff I would still like to hear.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bislett coverage

                        Although I disagree with his tone, I'm afraid I did feel much of what 'roger ebert' described, but if even we, the core audience, are discontent with these crumbs, would it not be easy for ESPN to just forego track altogether? As for interviews, I always like Dwight's because he asks what's up next in the athlete's plan and what goals he/she is looking at, usually elicting some interesting insights.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Bislett coverage

                          > The Oslo meet was a great case in point.
                          We knew the results and read all of post-race
                          comments not long after the conclusion of the
                          meet.<

                          Well you did, and I did, but what percent of the viewing audience do you suppose knew the results and read all of the post-race comments? I'm sure it was a minority.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bislett coverage

                            I must also say that after reading most of the replies and especially Rogers I am also glad I chose not to watch it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bislett coverage

                              But if YOU don't watch, who will? And where does that leave the networks vis-a-vis airing ANY track?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X