I'm pretty sure you can commentate on what's happening right now, without knowing what happened 50 years ago.
Not nearly as well.
Hatch does have historical knowledge, though, so I'm not criticising him.
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.
2) You probably have a scroll bar...
Yes, and damn it gets used so I can get down to the important stuff. Just a weird priority from Axelgaard...
I think this is up there with the most surprising posts I have seen...That's really taste, isn't it? I am definitely more on Redhead's side here.
And actually I find the historical stuff super annoying. Not that I don't have interest in history, lol, but in which year xy won/raced/passed through, whatever, I absolutely don't care. Karsten Migels does that a lot on German ES and obviously many cycling fans appreciate it, but I find it such a weird fixation cycling has... I imagine football commentators talking about past games half of the time... everybody would be like "who cares! comment on what's happening".
Regarding the cultural scenery I would appreciate more real knowledge. Otherwise they can just leave it be as well. It's often cringe.
Imagine football commentators talking about past games half of the time... everybody would be like "who cares! comment on what's happening".
I think Kirby knows more; there's a difference between knowledge and reeling out PCS stats or whatever Cillian Kelly texted you.I'm also with RhD here. Hatch knows history better than Kirby but is worse at filling in the boring-time gaps (although Hatch is much better than others like Jez Cox).
Anyway, if you need cycling history, the analyst usually can provide it.
I'm also with RhD here. Hatch knows history better than Kirby but is worse at filling in the boring-time gaps (although Hatch is much better than others like Jez Cox).
Anyway, if you need cycling history, the analyst usually can provide it.
There are definitely football commentators who does that.
I would think that it's common to refer to previous El Clásicos when Barca and Real play.I haven't experienced that apart from an occasional 20 seconds mentioning maybe here or there. But definitely not as a relevant part of the commentary. Is it common in Denmark?
It's not common at all, cause of course there isn't usually the same amount of dead air to fill during a football match as in a bike race.I haven't experienced that apart from an occasional 20 seconds mentioning maybe here or there. But definitely not as a relevant part of the commentary. Is it common in Denmark?