- Sep 8, 2009
- 15,306
- 3
- 22,485
I kind of agree that Phil and Paul are best for listeners that don't know much about cycling.
In the winter of 2005 I was sick with the flu and couldn't sleep so one night I was channel surfing and the Tour De France was on. I knew nothing about cycling but it held my interest. I really liked listening to Phil and Paul explain things and how the tour worked and why cyclists did this and that during their broadcast.
I was a complete newby to cycling and I still am really. I don't ride myself but I love to watch cycling on the TV and not just the Tour De France. If I can't watch it I will try and find a live stream, even if I can't understand the commentary.
But I admit I do like Paul and Phil as like I said, I am just a basic cycling fan. I don't know the analytically stuff and I can't debate with someone the ins and outs of a rider or race or compare times or best stages/races from the past or best/crappy riders or talk about their bikes or their helmets or anything to do with cycling hardware. I know nothing of that, I just like to watch cycling on the TV/livestream and see some good racing.
In the winter of 2005 I was sick with the flu and couldn't sleep so one night I was channel surfing and the Tour De France was on. I knew nothing about cycling but it held my interest. I really liked listening to Phil and Paul explain things and how the tour worked and why cyclists did this and that during their broadcast.
I was a complete newby to cycling and I still am really. I don't ride myself but I love to watch cycling on the TV and not just the Tour De France. If I can't watch it I will try and find a live stream, even if I can't understand the commentary.
But I admit I do like Paul and Phil as like I said, I am just a basic cycling fan. I don't know the analytically stuff and I can't debate with someone the ins and outs of a rider or race or compare times or best stages/races from the past or best/crappy riders or talk about their bikes or their helmets or anything to do with cycling hardware. I know nothing of that, I just like to watch cycling on the TV/livestream and see some good racing.
- Mar 26, 2009
- 2,532
- 1
- 0
jens_attacks said:sean kelly is one of the biggest stars this sport ever delivered.he's a saint of this sport.
but there is no way in hell sean kelly could be a commentator,even a stone has more soul and the mumbling doesn't help either.it's terrible.
i also don't like at all savoldelli,i don't know why he was selected,yes he's brilliant on the technical side but that's it,he has no vocabulary at all.a commentator should also have knowledge about everything around.a little bit from everything.
the best combination i've ever heard and i think it was the perfect one:
adriano de zan,a poet of cycling,defintely the voice of it and cassani.
on rai now is like there are two cassani's i don't like it.pancani has no flavour like de zan or bulbarelli.
Oh please...De Zan was a big cycling lover but he knew almost nothing of cycling itself and often making mistakes. A sort of italian Phil but the main difference between the two is that indeed De Zan had a true passion for it which a cant feel on Phil's speech.
Tei6chai said:
- Sep 8, 2009
- 15,306
- 3
- 22,485
Michele said:
don't know but every phrase de zan said seems like it was of terrible importance and straight from the heart.from all the commentaries i've heard in the languages i understand,he was the best.also all the interviews,the knowledge about the riders.on the technical side,cassani.but i also love perico because the legend is completely nuts...who else is making a trumpet like sound when the attacks are starting?Ta da da daaaa!!!!
i reckon though that for me,de zan is also so great because he was contemporary with marco.he made marco even greater and viceversa.
"Quando questo ragazzo scatta non c'è niente da fare"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASXdMrkZNXc
i also have to admit that i'm inclined more to like a guy like de zan and bulbarelli with a proper voice for commentating cycling even if they make mistakes than a guy with absolutely no talent but with wider knowledge.
- Dec 7, 2010
- 5,507
- 0
- 0
No matter how times this hayride passes by, it's hard for me not to jump on.
I think they fail massively on two counts:
For those who are new to the sport, P&P provide and incredibly narrow view of both the participants and the race events (could that be considered a "laser-like focus"?). The new viewer is unlikely to be made aware of any rider whose strong performance doesn't fit the prearranged narrative. If that same rider happens to be named, say, Henao, then getting P&P to admit that a place called South America evens exists will be prove to be quite the challenge.
The deluded transparency that they exhibit when fawning over the ToC and other "grand tours" is beyond embarrassing. Their paid bias is insulting to the intelligence of anyone with half a functioning brain cell still operating. To them, the peloton is made up of about 20 riders and the season consists of only half as many events. It does a disservice to the viewer and to the sport itself.
I can't think of any other sport on U.S. TV where the personal bias of the commentator wouldn't be called out in a very public way. Of course cycling gets zero coverage outside of the P&P, and the vastly superior Todd Gogulski and Steve Schlanger presentations, so that will never happen. If ESPN had a talk show similar to any of the others that recap the week in baseball, basketball, or whatever, that was geared towards cycling with people that actually understood the sport, then P&P would get shredded. Have you ever seen the FOX Sunday Football crew throw barbs at each other? Of course! They call BS on one another at the drop of a hat. The infomercial style of P&P would be rightfully torn to pieces. But that will never happen — they get away with it because cycling is off the radar. There's no one there to keep them in check. If the sports section of the New York Times won't do it, then the likes of Velonews sure as hell won't either.
On the other side of the fence: One of the things I respect about Todd Gogulski the most is not the fact that he raced on teams with both Greg Lemond and Lance Armstrong, it's the fact the he never mentions it. He knows the sport, he loves the sport, and that's apparent in his broadcast style.
As far as either Harmon or Kirby: I only get them in small doses but they don't really bother me. I always find their enthusiasm for the sport entertaining and I can figure out the details of the race on my own. Plus, it's very cool to have translations of any post-race interview regardless of the language being spoken (I forget which of the two is fluent in at least five of them).
P&P, however, became a joke such a long time ago that it is no longer funny.
As this sentiment has been posted by many others as well, I have to take issue with it (although I fully support your awesome screen name).Cowgirlup said:
I think they fail massively on two counts:
For those who are new to the sport, P&P provide and incredibly narrow view of both the participants and the race events (could that be considered a "laser-like focus"?). The new viewer is unlikely to be made aware of any rider whose strong performance doesn't fit the prearranged narrative. If that same rider happens to be named, say, Henao, then getting P&P to admit that a place called South America evens exists will be prove to be quite the challenge.
The deluded transparency that they exhibit when fawning over the ToC and other "grand tours" is beyond embarrassing. Their paid bias is insulting to the intelligence of anyone with half a functioning brain cell still operating. To them, the peloton is made up of about 20 riders and the season consists of only half as many events. It does a disservice to the viewer and to the sport itself.
I can't think of any other sport on U.S. TV where the personal bias of the commentator wouldn't be called out in a very public way. Of course cycling gets zero coverage outside of the P&P, and the vastly superior Todd Gogulski and Steve Schlanger presentations, so that will never happen. If ESPN had a talk show similar to any of the others that recap the week in baseball, basketball, or whatever, that was geared towards cycling with people that actually understood the sport, then P&P would get shredded. Have you ever seen the FOX Sunday Football crew throw barbs at each other? Of course! They call BS on one another at the drop of a hat. The infomercial style of P&P would be rightfully torn to pieces. But that will never happen — they get away with it because cycling is off the radar. There's no one there to keep them in check. If the sports section of the New York Times won't do it, then the likes of Velonews sure as hell won't either.
On the other side of the fence: One of the things I respect about Todd Gogulski the most is not the fact that he raced on teams with both Greg Lemond and Lance Armstrong, it's the fact the he never mentions it. He knows the sport, he loves the sport, and that's apparent in his broadcast style.
As far as either Harmon or Kirby: I only get them in small doses but they don't really bother me. I always find their enthusiasm for the sport entertaining and I can figure out the details of the race on my own. Plus, it's very cool to have translations of any post-race interview regardless of the language being spoken (I forget which of the two is fluent in at least five of them).
P&P, however, became a joke such a long time ago that it is no longer funny.
- Oct 5, 2010
- 1,045
- 0
- 10,480
Cowgirlup said:
I agree with you that as a newbie to the sport, I found Phil and Paul fantastic. Started with watching just the Tour, and they made it interesting.
Having watched and followed more closely for a few years now though - I have to say they are complete cr@p
Harmon and Kelly are SOOOOOO much better.As for learning about tactics, riders, and the ins and outs of racing .... hang around here for a while. Its really interesting to hear what everyone has to say, and you soon form an opinion of your own.
I ain't new to cycling but I don't mind Phil and Paul. They are at least excited about the sport. The whole forum seems to dislike them but I really don't think they are so bad.
- Jun 16, 2009
- 19,654
- 2
- 0
craig1985 said:
One of P & P's classics during 2010 Paris Roubaix was when the gap between Cancellara and Other favourites groups was 61 seconds and Phil says '61 seconds, that was the margin between Lance Armstrong and Jan Ullrich in the 2003 Tdf'. I nearly put my foot through the TV. Some of their comments during the 2010 PR when crapping on about how good Armstrong will be on the cobbles compared to Contador was really annoying as well.
Time to move the broken record on! The Muppet show has run its course
Contract Matt Keenan from Australia to commentate on every UCI event.
He's brilliant an informative without being a "sock puppet"
Continue ...
Contract Matt Keenan from Australia to commentate on every UCI event.
He's brilliant an informative without being a "sock puppet"
Continue ...
- Mar 17, 2009
- 1,362
- 0
- 10,480
auscyclefan94 said:
Well this one is not from Paris-Roubaix but actually from the Versus Pre Race show before the 2010 TdF stage 3 - The cobble stage. Phil says that smart people like Armstrong recon the cobble stage while others like Contador don't.......WTF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2G0Uoudkus&feature=youtu.be
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
- Mar 17, 2009
- 1,362
- 0
- 10,480
Race Radio said:Sad thing it that video could be hours long....
Just a quick edit i put together
- Mar 26, 2009
- 2,532
- 1
- 0
jens_attacks said:
Sorry again if I dont share your same opinion, but Bulbarelli was a total joke; even when he kept mistaking names he wouldnt say "Im sorry" but "WE are sorry" like if Cassani did the mistake as well.
And plenty of times when an action/attacking was on the screen, he wouldnt notice until 1-2 minutes later.
The only good thing that he did is recently, by adding more cycling to Raisport2 (he is at the head office of Rai Sport).
I wasn't sure of Pancani at first, but he is a nice guy, hardly makes mistakes and even funny at times.
Actually you make some very good points.
When I think about the TDF coverage by Phil and Paul I do think you are correct when you say their focus is only on a very few select riders.
I will admit that when Lance Armstrong made a reappearance to the sport that I did want to throw a brick at the TV because I was so sick and tired of P&P talking about him.(I am not a fan of LA at all) In the earlier years I started watching LA was winning and I can't remember hating them talking about him so much only because I was new to the sport and would listen to anything.
I really have no excuse but I don't think I could name one rider on some of teams if they aren't loved and talked about by Phil and Paul. (Fdj or cofidis for eg)
I am an Aussie and don't have Eurosport so it is Phil and Paul or live stream in a language I can't understand.
So I do concede that you could very well be right for most of what you said in that post.
- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
- May 14, 2010
- 5,303
- 4
- 0
gooner said:I remember an edition of procycling a couple of months before that tour and it featured a big article about contador doing a recon of the cobbles with a picture of himself and van petegem and another picture with himself and pereiro.
Does liggett not even read procycling now.
I'm away from home on business, and so haven't had time for the forum. But I couldn't pass this up.
The thing about Phil and Paul is that they are actually quite capable. And they can be enjoyable to listen to. Particularly Phil who, at his best, conveys just the right mixture of passion, professional detachment, and sophistication.
Which makes what I'm about to say all the more regrettable. Like everything else Armstrong and company touch, Phil and Paul were long ago corrupted. A long time ago they may have asked themselves: maintain my credibility; or say something I get paid to say even though it makes me look like an utter fool? In this clip as in so many others we have the obvious answer.
To me, this is what makes them hard to watch. With other cycling commentators, the issues are often lack of intelligence and personality and talent. With these two, these qualities are there (somewhere in the distance) but they're made meaningless by lack of scruples and self-respect. That's the sad bottom line.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Granville57 said:No matter how times this hayride passes by, it's hard for me not to jump on.
As this sentiment has been posted by many others as well, I have to take issue with it (although I fully support your awesome screen name).
I think they fail massively on two counts:
For those who are new to the sport, P&P provide and incredibly narrow view of both the participants and the race events (could that be considered a "laser-like focus"?). The new viewer is unlikely to be made aware of any rider whose strong performance doesn't fit the prearranged narrative. If that same rider happens to be named, say, Henao, then getting P&P to admit that a place called South America evens exists will be prove to be quite the challenge.
The deluded transparency that they exhibit when fawning over the ToC and other "grand tours" is beyond embarrassing. Their paid bias is insulting to the intelligence of anyone with half a functioning brain cell still operating. To them, the peloton is made up of about 20 riders and the season consists of only half as many events. It does a disservice to the viewer and to the sport itself.
I can't think of any other sport on U.S. TV where the personal bias of the commentator wouldn't be called out in a very public way. Of course cycling gets zero coverage outside of the P&P, and the vastly superior Todd Gogulski and Steve Schlanger presentations, so that will never happen. If ESPN had a talk show similar to any of the others that recap the week in baseball, basketball, or whatever, that was geared towards cycling with people that actually understood the sport, then P&P would get shredded. Have you ever seen the FOX Sunday Football crew throw barbs at each other? Of course! They call BS on one another at the drop of a hat. The infomercial style of P&P would be rightfully torn to pieces. But that will never happen — they get away with it because cycling is off the radar. There's no one there to keep them in check. If the sports section of the New York Times won't do it, then the likes of Velonews sure as hell won't either.
On the other side of the fence: One of the things I respect about Todd Gogulski the most is not the fact that he raced on teams with both Greg Lemond and Lance Armstrong, it's the fact the he never mentions it. He knows the sport, he loves the sport, and that's apparent in his broadcast style.
As far as either Harmon or Kirby: I only get them in small doses but they don't really bother me. I always find their enthusiasm for the sport entertaining and I can figure out the details of the race on my own. Plus, it's very cool to have translations of any post-race interview regardless of the language being spoken (I forget which of the two is fluent in at least five of them).
P&P, however, became a joke such a long time ago that it is no longer funny.
Potentially the best post on this forum in months if not years. You’re so right. The fact the cycling is minority P&P get away with their “style” of commentary. What irks me most in regards to these two is they don’t declare their financial interests with Armstrong. Any respectable commentator/journalist is bound by a code of ethics to do so. They don’t.
I used to listen to P&P back in the late 80’s on Channel 4 when I lived in the UK. They were solid back in those days. They didn’t pander. They did pump Robert Miller, Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche but those 3 were basically the only English Speaking riders at the time. They never fawned over them or made things up like they do with regards to Armstrong.
I think many will recall Phil’s commentary with Roche in 19987 when he chased down Delgardo - it was a mega call. In those days they were working with fairly poor camera quality and they only had 3 cameras at the races. They were fairly good with what they were working with.
These days they have access to a myriad of data and camera shots and they’ve got progressively worse. Selling out to Armstrong ended it for them. They sold their souls and the quality went down once they were comprised.
- Mar 11, 2009
- 277
- 0
- 0
Todd Gogulski and Steve Schlanger are pretty decent commentators. I watched the Giro last year and they commentated the whole thing for Universal Sports. They handled the Giro tragedy really well, and they actually seem to call out the riders names fairly accurately (though often their last name pronunciations are all over the place). I also like that there are stretches of time when they don't say anything and it is just the road and motorcycle sounds.
Phil and Paul...I could do without them. But, sadly, they cover 90% of the races that are shown in the U.S. market.
Phil and Paul...I could do without them. But, sadly, they cover 90% of the races that are shown in the U.S. market.
- Jul 17, 2009
- 4,316
- 2
- 0
nightfend said:
GOGO is great IMHO. He brings good technical commentary on positioning and gearing etc with sound knowledge of the bikes riders use on the fly which is great in my book. Schlanger gets real excited and can call a sprint well and identify the riders in the bunch well
I will say that Paul does a good job researching landmarks and describing history of the area each stage is in.
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram