Eurosport commentary

[RedheadDane]

Cheater! You edited. You'd written 'giantess' first.

One thing I in particular like about Holm is that he isn't biased towards his "own" riders when commentating, quite the opposite sometimes, and he wasn't exactly proud of the Drome Classic fail...

 

[tobydawq]

Re:

Cheater! You edited. You'd written 'giantess' first.

One thing I in particular like about Holm is that he isn't biased towards his "own" riders when commentating, quite the opposite sometimes, and he wasn't exactly proud of the Drome Classic fail...

Guilty as charged All the dialogue about that particular subject is actually possible to find on Youtube, and I saw that the videos used the word beast, not giantess. Het beest von Diksmuide.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Just to add another comment only reserved for the Danes (that seems to be going on a lot lately on CN, lol), Thomas Bay feats from time to time on the Souplesse podcast. I think he is very enjoyable to listen to, both on TV and podcasts.

 

[tobydawq]

Re:

Just to add another comment only reserved for the Danes (that seems to be going on a lot lately on CN, lol), Thomas Bay feats from time to time on the Souplesse podcast. I think he is very enjoyable to listen to, both on TV and podcasts.

Indeed. It's a good podcast, generally. Just a bit annoying to listen to Lars and his incessant øh'ing.

And screw you guys - I had work for tomorrow to see to. Now I've found a Youtuber who has posted a whole bunch of videos where Holm and Bay go berzerk. It's hilarious.

 

[Akuryo]

Re: Re:

Just to add another comment only reserved for the Danes (that seems to be going on a lot lately on CN, lol), Thomas Bay feats from time to time on the Souplesse podcast. I think he is very enjoyable to listen to, both on TV and podcasts.

Indeed. It's a good podcast, generally. Just a bit annoying to listen to Lars and his incessant øh'ing.

And screw you guys - I had work for tomorrow to see to. Now I've found a Youtuber who has posted a whole bunch of videos where Holm and Bay go berzerk. It's hilarious.

Priorities.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

Just to add another comment only reserved for the Danes (that seems to be going on a lot lately on CN, lol), Thomas Bay feats from time to time on the Souplesse podcast. I think he is very enjoyable to listen to, both on TV and podcasts.

Indeed. It's a good podcast, generally. Just a bit annoying to listen to Lars and his incessant øh'ing.

And screw you guys - I had work for tomorrow to see to. Now I've found a Youtuber who has posted a whole bunch of videos where Holm and Bay go berzerk. It's hilarious.

Agreed on Lars.

Link!

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

Just to add another comment only reserved for the Danes (that seems to be going on a lot lately on CN, lol), Thomas Bay feats from time to time on the Souplesse podcast. I think he is very enjoyable to listen to, both on TV and podcasts.

Indeed. It's a good podcast, generally. Just a bit annoying to listen to Lars and his incessant øh'ing.

And screw you guys - I had work for tomorrow to see to. Now I've found a Youtuber who has posted a whole bunch of videos where Holm and Bay go berzerk. It's hilarious.

Agreed on Lars.

Link!

https://www.youtube.com/user/Mutin/videos

All cycling videos (almost) are with Holm and Bay.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Re: Re:

I had to listen to him today, and I wanted to shoot him within 10 seconds. Shut up, shut up, shut up! Really, Majka working on the front for Formolo? Sagan out of it when he is in 10th~position on the climb and not gapped? He is such a pain and he constantly fills the air with nonsense.

Majka is out of the GC running; Formolo is top ten. It's not a stretch to suggest that perhaps Majka would want to work for Formolo.
Also, Sagan was out of it in terms of winning the stage. That was abundantly clear.
Seriously, you guys can do better than this.
Sure, you don't like a well-read commentator who constantly comes up with well-timed quips. Good for you.
Whatever floats your boat.
I'm suggesting that perhaps you might like him more if you pick up a book and do a bit more reading. That way you might understand and enjoy my man Carlton Kirby a bit more.

Sagan finished second: he was the strongest finisher out of everyone who remained in the group, and no-one other than Yates was able to stay away from the group. If only one man was able to get clear, it was entirely feasible that no-one would.

So for the bolded comment to stand, you need to explain how either you, or Kirby, knew with certainty at that stage in the commentary that someone would get away.

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

I had to listen to him today, and I wanted to shoot him within 10 seconds. Shut up, shut up, shut up! Really, Majka working on the front for Formolo? Sagan out of it when he is in 10th~position on the climb and not gapped? He is such a pain and he constantly fills the air with nonsense.

Majka is out of the GC running; Formolo is top ten. It's not a stretch to suggest that perhaps Majka would want to work for Formolo.
Also, Sagan was out of it in terms of winning the stage. That was abundantly clear.
Seriously, you guys can do better than this.
Sure, you don't like a well-read commentator who constantly comes up with well-timed quips. Good for you.
Whatever floats your boat.
I'm suggesting that perhaps you might like him more if you pick up a book and do a bit more reading. That way you might understand and enjoy my man Carlton Kirby a bit more.

Sagan finished second: he was the strongest finisher out of everyone who remained in the group, and no-one other than Yates was able to stay away from the group. If only one man was able to get clear, it was entirely feasible that no-one would.

So for the bolded comment to stand, you need to explain how either you, or Kirby, knew with certainty at that stage in the commentary that someone would get away.

Ha! This is funny.
I think the result pretty much says it all.
I'm not going to go back and search for the minute my man CK declared Sagan was out of the running, because it doesn't matter.
He was right.
P.S. Still waiting for my buddy Cycle Chic to provide examples of CK's ineptitude in his stage 4 commentary. Hey, Cycle Chic: While you're busy scouring the archives, please do us all a favour and let us know when Carlton Kirby said Sagan would not win stage 5.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he said it before the finish.
Thanks in advance!

 

[Armchair cyclist]

So you don't know when it happened, but you state that it was absolutely clear at that time that he was right. Please explain how that works. The result does not say it all about what was or was not possible several kilometres before the winning break was made.

It turned out that he was right, but that does not mean that it was a good commentary call that he was out of the running. If there is a lead group of 20, he could declare that every single one of them will not win and still be right 95% of the time. A prediction such as the Sagan one yesterday is only meaningful in as much as it is an analysis of the evidence, otherwise it is an uneducated guess and if a commentator is informing us of his uninformed hunches, he should be clear that that is what he is doing (and CK often does do that). A commentator should not be content with being correct on the same basis as a stopped clock.

So what evidence do you think he was drawing on? How could Kirby, could anyone, have confidently known at that point that Sagan was out of it? How could you have known, at the time of watching it, that someone would make a successful breakaway?

There is a lot of irrational, criticise for whatever reason one can possibly find, comment about Kirby here (interspersed among some legitimate criticism). But an equally unbalanced approach of "He is right, whatever he said even if I don't know when or why he said it" is equally irrational. If you can't say why you believe he was right to say it, don't assert that he was.

 

[the delgados]

Re:

So you don't know when it happened, but you state that it was absolutely clear at that time that he was right. Please explain how that works. The result does not say it all about what was or was not possible several kilometres before the winning break was made.

It turned out that he was right, but that does not mean that it was a good commentary call that he was out of the running. If there is a lead group of 20, he could declare that every single one of them will not win and still be right 95% of the time. A prediction such as the Sagan one yesterday is only meaningful in as much as it is an analysis of the evidence, otherwise it is an uneducated guess and if a commentator is informing us of his uninformed hunches, he should be clear that that is what he is doing (and CK often does do that). A commentator should not be content with being correct on the same basis as a stopped clock.

So what evidence do you think he was drawing on? How could Kirby, could anyone, have confidently known at that point that Sagan was out of it? How could you have known, at the time of watching it, that someone would make a successful breakaway?

There is a lot of irrational, criticise for whatever reason one can possibly find, comment about Kirby here (interspersed among some legitimate criticism). But an equally unbalanced approach of "He is right, whatever he said even if I don't know when or why he said it" is equally irrational. If you can't say why you believe he was right to say it, don't assert that he was.

Good lord.
I feel like I'm on trial here. You know this is pretty much all a joke, right?
I do not care if you like my man CK, and I don't care to discuss time lines; but since you asked, here we go.
The job of my man Carlton Kirby is to increase and accentuate the drama of a bike race.
If someone who knew next to nothing about bike racing tuned in to the broadcast and learned that the world champion was being distanced, I'm going to suggest that perhaps the viewer might tune in. You are right--CK could have picked any number of riders, but Sagan was the most important. See what I'm saying?
Let me give you an example.
Say the world champion Peter Sagan was part of a 20 rider chase group. If you were the commentator, who would you say was in trouble-- Peter Sagan, or Big Joe? (Big Joe is the response my non-cycling-fan- friend gives when I jokingly ask who is her favourite to win a race.) I'm going to venture a guess and say you would choose Peter Sagan over Big Joe.

 

[yaco]

And to think Sagan was favorite for that stage and was desperately disappointed to finish second - Kirby is not the most tactically astute commentator, but in this case his call on Sagan at that time was more than reasonable.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Re: Re:

Good lord.
I feel like I'm on trial here. You know this is pretty much all a joke, right?
I do not care if you like my man CK, and I don't care to discuss time lines; but since you asked, here we go.
The job of my man Carlton Kirby is to increase and accentuate the drama of a bike race.
If someone who knew next to nothing about bike racing tuned in to the broadcast and learned that the world champion was being distanced, I'm going to suggest that perhaps the viewer might tune in. You are right--CK could have picked any number of riders, but Sagan was the most important. See what I'm saying?
Let me give you an example.
Say the world champion Peter Sagan was part of a 20 rider chase group. If you were the commentator, who would you say was in trouble-- Peter Sagan, or Big Joe? (Big Joe is the response my non-cycling-fan- friend gives when I jokingly ask who is her favourite to win a race.) I'm going to venture a guess and say you would choose Peter Sagan over Big Joe.

You don't need to discuss time lines, you only need to read what Netserk said: "Sagan out of it when he is in 10th~position on the climb and not gapped". It was before Yates' attack, I think at about 6km to go, so no-one was being distanced, there was no chase group because there was no-one to chase, no-one was in trouble.

He wrote Sagan off when there was no reason to do so, no evidence that he couldn't win.

But you defended him when you didn't know what was known at the time he spoke, so you were defending him with no knowledge of whether it was a justified comment at the time he was made. Faith without evidence, loyalty without evidence, irrational prejudice.

 

[Cycle Chic]

"The job of my man Carlton Kirby is to increase and accentuate the drama of a bike race. "

Ohhhhh thats your role is it !!! ??? well fair enough Carlton.....but dont hog the airtime with your attempts at 'pretending to know professional bike racing'.

Go back to Twitter and tweet some more ridiculous, childish jokes......just sums you up.

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

Good lord.
I feel like I'm on trial here. You know this is pretty much all a joke, right?
I do not care if you like my man CK, and I don't care to discuss time lines; but since you asked, here we go.
The job of my man Carlton Kirby is to increase and accentuate the drama of a bike race.
If someone who knew next to nothing about bike racing tuned in to the broadcast and learned that the world champion was being distanced, I'm going to suggest that perhaps the viewer might tune in. You are right--CK could have picked any number of riders, but Sagan was the most important. See what I'm saying?
Let me give you an example.
Say the world champion Peter Sagan was part of a 20 rider chase group. If you were the commentator, who would you say was in trouble-- Peter Sagan, or Big Joe? (Big Joe is the response my non-cycling-fan- friend gives when I jokingly ask who is her favourite to win a race.) I'm going to venture a guess and say you would choose Peter Sagan over Big Joe.

You don't need to discuss time lines, you only need to read what Netserk said: "Sagan out of it when he is in 10th~position on the climb and not gapped". It was before Yates' attack, I think at about 6km to go, so no-one was being distanced, there was no chase group because there was no-one to chase, no-one was in trouble.

He wrote Sagan off when there was no reason to do so, no evidence that he couldn't win.

But you defended him when you didn't know what was known at the time he spoke, so you were defending him with no knowledge of whether it was a justified comment at the time he was made. Faith without evidence, loyalty without evidence, irrational prejudice.

I thought your criticism and accusation about irrational prejudice might be right, so I went back and looked at the last 10 km's of stage 5. The following is what my man man Carlton Kirby said.
--He suggested the winner of the stage would do it alone. You know, solo style. He was correct.
--Contrary to what Netserk said, CK suggested that Majka was going for a stage win. At no point did he say Majka was working for his teammate. So Netserk was wrong.
--I will post the link if anyone is interested, but my man Carlton Kirby correctly said Sagan was out of the mix well before the end of the stage. Sagan was going backwards with 3.9 km's to go in the stage. That was abundantly clear. He was falling like a rock.
if you don't believe what I'm saying, go to youtube and type in 2018 Tirreno Adriatico Stage 5 final km's.
Go have a listen.
I admit that I have an irrational prejudice; that's part of the joke.
Seriously, this whole thing started as a joke, but the more attention I pay to what he's saying, the more i like him. I think the guy is an awesome commentator.

 

[Netserk]

It's not on youtube (anymore).

 

[the delgados]

Re:

It's not on youtube (anymore).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOFUKtT3MGU

Now it's on cyclingnews.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

It's not on youtube (anymore).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOFUKtT3MGU

Now it's on cyclingnews.

Blocked in Denmark by Eurosport.

 

[argyllflyer]

duplicate

 

[Cycle Chic]

Rob hatch should be the main commentator with all the others....minus Kirby and Eurosport have a good commentary team

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

It's not on youtube (anymore).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOFUKtT3MGU

Now it's on cyclingnews.

Blocked in Denmark by Eurosport.

I would provide a transcript of what my man Carlton Kirby said, but that would cost money.
I've been told the moderators don't get paid, so no chance I would. (P.S. Moderators deserve to be paid.)
Anyhow, you can choose to take my word for what I said; you will not be penalized either way. But my man Carlton Kirby did not say Majka was working for his teammate. He suggested on two occasions that Majka was chomping at the bit for a stage win.
Also, you can choose to trust me or not, but Sagan was dropped with just under 4 km's to go. Yes, he finished second, but he could not maintain the explosive pace set by the Orica Michelen's (or whatever the hell they're called).
I'll tell you what: Since it seems you and your fellow countrymen communicate by smoke signals, what say you you come to Canada to watch a replay? Drinks are on me.

 

[tobydawq]

Sagan was never dropped. Now you're just making stuff up.

 

[Vince]

You should not tell them that "this was pretty much all a joke", Delgardo" since it spoils the fun . . just let them find out for themselves!

Tony (President of the Carlton Kirby fan club UK)

 

[the delgados]

Re:

Sagan was never dropped. Now you're just making stuff up.

Is the youtube video blocked in your country as well?

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

Sagan was never dropped. Now you're just making stuff up.

Is the youtube video blocked in your country as well?

I watched the stage and had my eyes on Sagan throughout the finale. He lost a couple of positions on the Muro but was never dropped.