Eurosport commentary

Page 106 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Cycle Chic said:
mariposa said:
Fork-in-the-Road said:
Why do the commentators insist on talking over the interviews!
Agree completely. It's not as if most of them can translate what is being said - assuming of course the interview isn't in the commentators native language.

Rob Hatch could translate. Kirby could translate if it was in idiot language.
Kirby just "translates" what he thinks the riders would say, not what they actually say.
 
Aug 21, 2011
467
0
9,280
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Cycle Chic said:
mariposa said:
Fork-in-the-Road said:
Why do the commentators insist on talking over the interviews!
Agree completely. It's not as if most of them can translate what is being said - assuming of course the interview isn't in the commentators native language.

Rob Hatch could translate. Kirby could translate if it was in idiot language.

Apologies to Rob Hatch he is probably the exception that proves the rule.

Kirby just "translates" what he thinks the riders would say, not what they actually say.

Ha ha agree completely. A bit like he speculates what riders are thinking or saying to each other during a race. I also think that sometimes he has a translation in front of him which he reads from, pretending that he is translating. You know he doesn't really understand when he manages to "translate" something before the rider says it.


I think that Kirby makes it up as he goes
 
Re: Re:

mariposa said:
LaFlorecita said:
Cycle Chic said:
mariposa said:
Fork-in-the-Road said:
Why do the commentators insist on talking over the interviews!
Agree completely. It's not as if most of them can translate what is being said - assuming of course the interview isn't in the commentators native language.

Rob Hatch could translate. Kirby could translate if it was in idiot language.

Apologies to Rob Hatch he is probably the exception that proves the rule.

Kirby just "translates" what he thinks the riders would say, not what they actually say.

Ha ha agree completely. A bit like he speculates what riders are thinking or saying to each other during a race. I also think that sometimes he has a translation in front of him which he reads from, pretending that he is translating. You know he doesn't really understand when he manages to "translate" something before the rider says it.


I think that Kirby makes it up as he goes
Yes, he does this with the knowledge that most of the viewers he's commentating to have very little pro cycling knowledge thus making what he says perfectly believable to them.

For us, the ones that know as much or more than him it's infuriating...
 
Re: Re:

Cycle Chic said:
the delgados said:
Sigh.
Once again I feel the need to delve into the metaphorical gutter and pull out my man Carlton Kirby from the steaming pile of, well, you know what.
Let me tell you something about Carlton Kirby. He is a legend among mere mortals in broadcasting. ....
With that said, to sum up: Please do not make me send these messages on a weekly basis.
Respect the man. Respect the legend.
Respect Carlton Kirby, m'kay?

IS THAT YOU CARLTON ? BLOWING UP YOUR OWN A**.

Carlton Kirby is an insult to cyclists

No, I am not Carlton Kirby, nor am I blowing up my ass, whatever the hell that means.
I'm just joking.

I get a kick out of responding to the mean-spirited vitriol directed toward my man Carlton Kirby.
Granted, I'm far from an expert cycling analyst, but I'm not stupid. I tend to think I can see what's going on when watching a race.

Sure, my man Carlton has his flaws, but who doesn't? I just don't get the amount of vitriol directed toward a guy who is doing his best to call a bike race.
I know I'm not going to change anyone's opinion, so it's kind of a waste of time to say he comes up with some clever quips and observations.

Regarding the translations, I'm embarrassed to say I can only barely speak one language at best. Is it true that Carlton Kirby is just making stuff up in translation? I'm genuinely curious to know.
 
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
Sure, my man Carlton has his flaws, but who doesn't? I just don't get the amount of vitriol directed toward a guy who is doing his best to call a bike race.
.

Kirby is supposed to be an expert commentator in Cycling - he is being PAID to commentate on a cycling race. Any joe public can tell us what he says. He just reads from his race sheet....talks about the same riders every race...never converses or discusses the race with Sean kelly or Magnus Backstedt - its these unfortunates who always seem to get stuck with Kirby - BECAUSE HE CANT ! he doesnt have enough knowledge of pro cycling to carry on that conversation.
 
Re: Re:

the delgados said:
Cycle Chic said:
the delgados said:
Sigh.
Once again I feel the need to delve into the metaphorical gutter and pull out my man Carlton Kirby from the steaming pile of, well, you know what.
Let me tell you something about Carlton Kirby. He is a legend among mere mortals in broadcasting. ....
With that said, to sum up: Please do not make me send these messages on a weekly basis.
Respect the man. Respect the legend.
Respect Carlton Kirby, m'kay?

IS THAT YOU CARLTON ? BLOWING UP YOUR OWN A**.

Carlton Kirby is an insult to cyclists



Sure, my man Carlton has his flaws, but who doesn't? I just don't get the amount of vitriol directed toward a guy who is doing his best to call a bike race.
Is he?
 
In fairness Kirby has a good speaking voice and a whimsical manner that I dont mind and also does come up with some very good quips on occasion. He also injects passion into cycling

But these do not make up for his flaws..most of which are based on deceit

He does not follow the race well nor name the riders well....he is more interested in overly discussing his latest obsession to the point that he ignores everything else...these obsessions like Simon Clarke wining MSR are based on some non logic event and rather than acknowledge that they are a hope and not a real possibility Kirby goes on and on as if his predition WILL happen...Its like a child with a toy. Meanwhile fans who know the sport are driven to distraction as the race is changing before our eyes and we dont know what is happening as he doesnt call it

Another deceit is he calls the race incorrectly, names a rider wrong, etc ...but rather than correct himself he spends ages telling us why he was right to say what he said

He also pretends to have insider knowledge by saying things that riders are thinking or saying that he cannot know and in the most part are ridiculous. He treats the viewer like an idiot

He is plainly biased towards some riders and anti others....I expect many pundits are but they hide it and do not bring it to their job. He says the most outlandish things about his favourites ...ie descending low on the stem is known as a "Froomy" ? He decided this is what it wll be called from now on .....but was happening long before Froome. He also says the most ridiculous plaudits about his favourites that transcends their cycling..."What a man what courage what blah blah.... " about Froome ...em he won the Tour ...not developed a cure for cancer

But he can be vindictive about those he does not like or takes against ...he said TJ V Garderen was dreadful in his team and dreadful to work with and Nibali was petty , etc .....yet he gave no evidenc to back up his claims....he is now going back on what he said about Van Garderen because I would not be surprised if the team complained.... His words influence people and he needs to be careful with what is evidence and what are his petty preferences. Some of his comments about some riders, teams and local architecture can be mean spirited

He does not translate many interviews correctly and makes up what he thinks the riders are saying... I complained to him about this and he basically said I had no sense of humour ????

It is fine in my book that he does not know everything about cycling the deceit is he pretends he does ...He even argues with the experts as to his superior knowledge....

I call him pompous as he is full of his own superior knowledge , his 'magnificant' skills at commentary (backed up by some ridiculous site that lists his comments) so rather than talk plain english he insists on ridiculous phrases that he thinks make him look erudite and brilliant but have the opposite effect for anyone with half a brain

Call the race, talk about all the riders, forget the 'old world' inappropriate terms, stop talking rubbish when the race is on (save it for earlier in the stage) , dont make any claims you cannot backup with evidence, stop being biased and translate what the riders say....not difficult and what is required
 
Re: Re:

mariposa said:
Fork-in-the-Road said:
Why do the commentators insist on talking over the interviews!
Agree completely. It's not as if most of them can translate what is being said - assuming of course the interview isn't in the commentators native language.

For the post-Ronde interviews, Kirby asked Kelly how his Flemish is, and let him translate: Kelly seemed confident enough in his ability to do the job.

Where the TV company providing footage play pre-race interviews in the middle of the race, perhaps they ought to provide transcripts (maybe even already translated) to the channels that purchase broadcast rights. Post-race translation will almost be a bit hit and miss: luckily, riders rarely have anything significant to say at the time.
 
Re:

HelloDolly said:
In fairness Kirby has a good speaking voice and a whimsical manner that I dont mind and also does come up with some very good quips on occasion. He also injects passion into cycling

But these do not make up for his flaws..most of which are based on deceit

He does not follow the race well nor name the riders well....he is more interested in overly discussing his latest obsession to the point that he ignores everyhting else...these obsessions like Simon Clarke wining MSR are based on some non logic event and rather than acknowledge thet they are a hope and not a real possibility Kirby goes on and on as if his predition WILL happen...Its like a child with a toy. Meanwhile fans who know the sport are driven to distraction as the race is changing before our eyes and we dont know what is happening as he doesnt call it

Another deceit is he calls the race incorrectly, names a rider wrong, etc ...but rather than correct himself he spends ages telling us why he was right to say what he said

He also pretends to have insider knowledge by saying things that riders are thinking or saying that he cannot know and in the most part are ridiculous. He treats the viewer like an idiot

He is plainly biased towards some riders and anti others....I expect many pundits are but they hide it and do not bring it to their job. He says the most outlandish things about his favourites ...ie descending low on the stem is known as a "Froomy" ? He decided this is what it wll be called from now on .....but was happening long before Froome. He also says the most ridiculous plaudits about his favourites that transcends their cycling..."What a man what courage what blah blah.... " about Froome ...em he won the Tour ...not developed a cure for cancer

But he can be vindictive about those he does not like or takes against ...he said TJ V Garderen was dreadful in his team and dreadful to work with and Nibali was petty , etc .....yet he gave no evidenc to back up his claims....he is now going back on what he aid about Van Garderen becasue I would not be surprised if the team complained.... His words influence people and he needs to be careful with what is evidence and what are his petty preferences. Some of his comments about some riders, teams and local architecture can be mean spirited

He does not translate many interviews correctly and makes up what he thinks the riders are saying... I complained to him about this and he basically said I had no sense of humour ????

It is fine in my book that he does not know everything about cycling the deceit is he pretends he does ...He even argues with the experts as to his superior knowledge....

I call him pompous as he is full of his own superior knowledge , his 'magnificant' skills at commentary (backuped up by some ridiculous site that lists his comments) so rather than talk plain english he insists on ridiculous phrases that he thinks make him look erudite and brilliant but have the opposite effect for anyone with half a brain

Call the race, talk about all the riders, forget the 'old world' inappropriate terms, stop talking rubbish when the race is on (save it for earlier in the stage) , dont make any claims you cannot backup with evidence, stop being biased and translate what the riders say....not difficult and what is required
Great post HelloDolly. Sums up my thoughts quite well. :)
 
Re:

HelloDolly said:
In fairness Kirby has a good speaking voice and a whimsical manner that I dont mind and also does come up with some very good quips on occasion. He also injects passion into cycling

But these do not make up for his flaws..most of which are based on deceit

He does not follow the race well nor name the riders well....he is more interested in overly discussing his latest obsession to the point that he ignores everyhting else...these obsessions like Simon Clarke wining MSR are based on some non logic event and rather than acknowledge thet they are a hope and not a real possibility Kirby goes on and on as if his predition WILL happen...Its like a child with a toy. Meanwhile fans who know the sport are driven to distraction as the race is changing before our eyes and we dont know what is happening as he doesnt call it

Another deceit is he calls the race incorrectly, names a rider wrong, etc ...but rather than correct himself he spends ages telling us why he was right to say what he said

He also pretends to have insider knowledge by saying things that riders are thinking or saying that he cannot know and in the most part are ridiculous. He treats the viewer like an idiot

He is plainly biased towards some riders and anti others....I expect many pundits are but they hide it and do not bring it to their job. He says the most outlandish things about his favourites ...ie descending low on the stem is known as a "Froomy" ? He decided this is what it wll be called from now on .....but was happening long before Froome. He also says the most ridiculous plaudits about his favourites that transcends their cycling..."What a man what courage what blah blah.... " about Froome ...em he won the Tour ...not developed a cure for cancer

But he can be vindictive about those he does not like or takes against ...he said TJ V Garderen was dreadful in his team and dreadful to work with and Nibali was petty , etc .....yet he gave no evidenc to back up his claims....he is now going back on what he aid about Van Garderen becasue I would not be surprised if the team complained.... His words influence people and he needs to be careful with what is evidence and what are his petty preferences. Some of his comments about some riders, teams and local architecture can be mean spirited

He does not translate many interviews correctly and makes up what he thinks the riders are saying... I complained to him about this and he basically said I had no sense of humour ????

It is fine in my book that he does not know everything about cycling the deceit is he pretends he does ...He even argues with the experts as to his superior knowledge....

I call him pompous as he is full of his own superior knowledge , his 'magnificant' skills at commentary (backuped up by some ridiculous site that lists his comments) so rather than talk plain english he insists on ridiculous phrases that he thinks make him look erudite and brilliant but have the opposite effect for anyone with half a brain

Call the race, talk about all the riders, forget the 'old world' inappropriate terms, stop talking rubbish when the race is on (save it for earlier in the stage) , dont make any claims you cannot backup with evidence, stop being biased and translate what the riders say....not difficult and what is required

Bloody good reply, that!
I agree 100%.
 
Re:

HelloDolly said:
In fairness Kirby has a good speaking voice and a whimsical manner that I dont mind and also does come up with some very good quips on occasion. He also injects passion into cycling

But these do not make up for his flaws..most of which are based on deceit

He does not follow the race well nor name the riders well....he is more interested in overly discussing his latest obsession to the point that he ignores everyhting else...these obsessions like Simon Clarke wining MSR are based on some non logic event and rather than acknowledge thet they are a hope and not a real possibility Kirby goes on and on as if his predition WILL happen...Its like a child with a toy. Meanwhile fans who know the sport are driven to distraction as the race is changing before our eyes and we dont know what is happening as he doesnt call it

Another deceit is he calls the race incorrectly, names a rider wrong, etc ...but rather than correct himself he spends ages telling us why he was right to say what he said

He also pretends to have insider knowledge by saying things that riders are thinking or saying that he cannot know and in the most part are ridiculous. He treats the viewer like an idiot

He is plainly biased towards some riders and anti others....I expect many pundits are but they hide it and do not bring it to their job. He says the most outlandish things about his favourites ...ie descending low on the stem is known as a "Froomy" ? He decided this is what it wll be called from now on .....but was happening long before Froome. He also says the most ridiculous plaudits about his favourites that transcends their cycling..."What a man what courage what blah blah.... " about Froome ...em he won the Tour ...not developed a cure for cancer

But he can be vindictive about those he does not like or takes against ...he said TJ V Garderen was dreadful in his team and dreadful to work with and Nibali was petty , etc .....yet he gave no evidenc to back up his claims....he is now going back on what he aid about Van Garderen becasue I would not be surprised if the team complained.... His words influence people and he needs to be careful with what is evidence and what are his petty preferences. Some of his comments about some riders, teams and local architecture can be mean spirited

He does not translate many interviews correctly and makes up what he thinks the riders are saying... I complained to him about this and he basically said I had no sense of humour ????

It is fine in my book that he does not know everything about cycling the deceit is he pretends he does ...He even argues with the experts as to his superior knowledge....

I call him pompous as he is full of his own superior knowledge , his 'magnificant' skills at commentary (backuped up by some ridiculous site that lists his comments) so rather than talk plain english he insists on ridiculous phrases that he thinks make him look erudite and brilliant but have the opposite effect for anyone with half a brain

Call the race, talk about all the riders, forget the 'old world' inappropriate terms, stop talking rubbish when the race is on (save it for earlier in the stage) , dont make any claims you cannot backup with evidence, stop being biased and translate what the riders say....not difficult and what is required
Great comment!

No doubt that a lot of people feel exactly the same way.
 
I think HelloDolly has provided a first class delineation, but I have another trait of his I find annoying: he assumes nearly every "name" cyclist is trying to win every stage. E.g. he just said Simon Clarke would be working today in the Basque Country for Uran. Then he concedes it's a sprinter's day, and suggests Uran would therefore have to attack from far out. He repeated the same statement for Kudus! Climbers aren't going to try and win today, you idiot.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
RedheadDane said:
therealthing said:
Called it wrong yet again today- thought Albasini was Richeze

As in he thought the Orica rider was Richeze, and completely ignored the QuickStep rider - actual Richeze - coming up?
Or... he thought Richeze was gonna overtake Albasini?
Think therealthing made a mistake - he thought Albasini was Gerrans

At least that would be understandable. Albasini and Gerrans are on the same team, and I suppose most often Gerrans would be the "go-to-guy" for the sprint.
Was a bit confused about how someone could mix up two guys from different teams, and not even like the Orica jersey and the QuckStep jersey are that much like...
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
RedheadDane said:
therealthing said:
Called it wrong yet again today- thought Albasini was Richeze

As in he thought the Orica rider was Richeze, and completely ignored the QuickStep rider - actual Richeze - coming up?
Or... he thought Richeze was gonna overtake Albasini?
Think therealthing made a mistake - he thought Albasini was Gerrans
No, he definitely called the winner as being Richeze
 
Re:

TMP402 said:
I think HelloDolly has provided a first class delineation, but I have another trait of his I find annoying: he assumes nearly every "name" cyclist is trying to win every stage. E.g. he just said Simon Clarke would be working today in the Basque Country for Uran. Then he concedes it's a sprinter's day, and suggests Uran would therefore have to attack from far out. He repeated the same statement for Kudus! Climbers aren't going to try and win today, you idiot.


That was only so he could mention Simon Clarke

Yesterday he said Simon Clarke would win the sprint ...today he would work to help Uran win the stage ..and Kirby comment today was said in a manner to suggest we should all keep our eyes on Simon Clarke !!

His infatuation with Clarke is so much I think he may be in love :surprised:
 
No surprise Kirby confused Albasini with Gerrans, especially as Albasini lead out Gerrans in stage 1 - Actually the camerawork was sketchy for the last 400 metres giving a poor insight into the finish - Gerrans and Albasini have similar styles