Not nearly as well.
Hatch does have historical knowledge, though, so I'm not criticising him.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Not nearly as well.
Hatch does have historical knowledge, though, so I'm not criticising him.
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.
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.
No. What guys did 50 years ago has no relevance to the racing now.
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.
If the choice is between a commentator who comments on what's happening right now, and a commentator who gets so focused on the history he feels to need to finish the story, even though stuff is happening in the actual race, I know what I prefer.
Of course, the ideal would be a commentator who can tell a story about some random rider's 100 K raid 50 years ago, but then the moment stuff is happening in the race, interrupt himself and start talking about the things that really matter.
Yes, but that was not what we talked about. Being able to tell old stories does not equal being incapable of not doing it.
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)
Yes, it's a nice bonus, but someone can still be a great commentator without being able to tell old stories.
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.
1) I find that extremely unlikely to be the case.
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...
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.
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.
I have an idea for a screenplay: The female lead has made a living out of giving advice and guidance to young and hopeful sports commentators. But then one day she herself is offered the opportunity to sit in front of the mic during a big sporting event.
Will she be able to stick to her own "rules"? Will the viewers enjoy it, or will her lack of knowledge prove an issue?
Pre-order your own 360p copy of "Hatch" today.
Will she be able to stick to her own "rules"? Will the viewers enjoy it, or will her lack of knowledge prove an issue?
Pre-order your own 360p copy of "Hatch" today.
I think this is up there with the most surprising posts I have seen...
There are definitely football commentators who does that.
I think Kirby knows more; there's a difference between knowledge and reeling out PCS stats or whatever Cillian Kelly texted you.
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.
But EURO 1992 champion Morten Bruun is often quite good at making references to past fixtures that may or may not have much to do with the game he's actually commentating on.
This is hillarious.
Why insist on watching a channel when unsatisfied with commentry here?
Today's streaming services delivers so many choices of watching pro cycling coverage on almost every spot on the globe, and it's a fully free choice to seek other channels. Myself doing this (shopping back and forth in coverage with more insightfull commentators) since 1994.
GCN coverage I've only watched less than two handfulls on occasions via YT and have no positive words to say of any what I've heard from here so far;
Often way too simplistic and one-dimensional, and I fully understand CN Forum becoming both simplistic and toxic if GCN is their main - or even only- gateway to watching pro cycling.
Why insist on watching a channel when unsatisfied with commentry here?
Today's streaming services delivers so many choices of watching pro cycling coverage on almost every spot on the globe, and it's a fully free choice to seek other channels. Myself doing this (shopping back and forth in coverage with more insightfull commentators) since 1994.
GCN coverage I've only watched less than two handfulls on occasions via YT and have no positive words to say of any what I've heard from here so far;
Often way too simplistic and one-dimensional, and I fully understand CN Forum becoming both simplistic and toxic if GCN is their main - or even only- gateway to watching pro cycling.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 978
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram