I usually have the volume on low anyway, but listening to Hatch will force me to exercise the mute option. He's just incredibly annoying.Hatch really is a hysterical these days and even more annoying ...
I usually have the volume on low anyway, but listening to Hatch will force me to exercise the mute option. He's just incredibly annoying.Hatch really is a hysterical these days and even more annoying ...
"In the land of fine Italian dining, it is a big mac that wins it"
If ever there were a line that deserves the sack...
It makes me fear for what he had planned in the case of Healy or Frigo winning: "In the land of the risotto, the best is Uncle Ben's", or "They eat their vegetables frito around here, but the break has been cooked by Frigo."
It makes me fear for what he had planned in the case of Healy or Frigo winning: "In the land of the risotto, the best is Uncle Ben's", or "They eat their vegetables frito around here, but the break has been cooked by Frigo."
"In the land of fine Italian dining, it is a big mac that wins it"
If ever there were a line that deserves the sack...
What are the odds that Kirby sent him that line via WhatsApp?the grief Kirby would get for delivering a line like that...plus I bet he's been waiting all Giro to use it too![]()
I complained about Hatch on this thread last week. Later, I realized I was too harsh. I've given a fresh listen to his Giro commentary over the past few days. He does do a fine job most of the time and the excessive volume and hyper-drama during attacks, crashes, finishes, etc. is surely because he loves the sport and gets possessed by his excitement in those moments.
He shows no passion. Just shouting, whispering or whelping and his historical knowledge is poor beyond Coppi.
Do you really need historical knowledge to be a commentator? A nice bonus, sure, but not really necessary.
Yes, you do.
I'm pretty sure you can commentate on what's happening right now, without knowing what happened 50 years ago.
Not nearly as well.
I'm pretty sure you can commentate on what's happening right now, without knowing what happened 50 years ago.
Why not? You don't need to know that 50 years ago [X-rider] did so-and-so in order to commentate on what's happening right in front of your eyes.
Sure... but during a 4-5 hour broadcast there are probably gonna be moments where not much is happening in the race.
You kinda need to be able to talk about other stuff than just commentating on the race. Like the scenery, historical buildings, castles and so one that the race goes by. Maybe history about the race or when the Giro last passed through here. When the last finish was at this city and so on.
I believe most of these commentators have or should have done their homework. It adds more to me as a viewer if they can talk about more than the racing... because I can see what is going in the race with my own eyes as well.
You kinda need to be able to talk about other stuff than just commentating on the race. Like the scenery, historical buildings, castles and so one that the race goes by. Maybe history about the race or when the Giro last passed through here. When the last finish was at this city and so on.
Yes yo do.
Do you really need historical knowledge to be a commentator? A nice bonus, sure, but not really necessary.
Is it so difficult to accept that historical knowledge provides commentator more contexts to...well...everything? For example so they know they don't need to react hysterically to everything that happen because they can tell special stuffs from the common ones, for a start. Basically, it's extremely easy to sound stupid when you have to keep talking for a long time about something you historically know very little.
Yes, but that was not what we talked about. Being able to tell old stories does not equal being incapable of not doing it.And that's all great when nothing is happening. However, sometimes commentators get so wrapped up in telling the great story of 50 years ago, they forget to notice what's happening right in front of their eyes.
It sounds like RhD has no appreciation for Bastian-Emil.
Yes, but that was not what we talked about. Being able to tell old stories does not equal being incapable of not doing it.
1) I find that extremely unlikely to be the case.He's great for when there's isn't much stuff happening. However, as soon as stuff starts happen, his stories can wait.
And if they make a "unequal sized split-screen", then the race needs to be on the bigger screen. (Same goes for when they show pre-race interviews)
1) Yes, it's a nice bonus, but someone can still be a great commentator without being able to tell old stories.
2) Dunno why, but this reminds me of Axelgaard's race previews. They're great, but... I just wish he'd put the "role and history of the race" segment near the end.