11/21/24
August 07, 2005
Millions of people saw Justin Gatlin claim the title of 'world's fastest man' in the blue riband 100m at this week's world athletics championships in Helsinki. Americans also claimed gold in the men's shot put. What, you didn't know? You must be American, where coverage is primarily online via PPV streams, with a grand total of eight tape-delayed hours on PAX TV. It's one of the summer's highlights. But hey, what about those X Games and poker players on ESPN?
How many "Worlds' fastest men" are there, anyway? Which ones are we supposed to care about?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:07 PM on August 07, 2005
Well, I guess there is a point to this. Should I feel guilty that I don't care though? Ok I really have to work on being nicer when it comes to sports.
posted by tina at 10:16 PM on August 07, 2005
Until I moved to the US, I thought it was something of a coup that the BBC had Michael Johnson as one of its athletics commentators. Now I realise the US networks just don't care. The BBC is showing at least three hours a day from Helsinki (and no, that's not just because it's in Europe); it's the fallow season for US sport, and the X Games and WSoP are basically there to fill the hours until the NFL and college sport kicks off... still, at $4.95, the online option isn't horrific. I'm just a bit gobsmacked that Gatlin will return from Finland to be told that he missed some schlub get a royal flush on ESPN.
posted by etagloh at 10:31 PM on August 07, 2005
Poor Justin Gatlin, the majority of his country doesn't care about his sport and what he's achieved. And no, I am not being sarcastic. lol.
posted by tina at 10:40 PM on August 07, 2005
They used to broadcast this thing live, whenever it was. It was news, like, news. See what a string of drug scandals will do to the reputation of a sport?
posted by chicobangs at 11:14 PM on August 07, 2005
Wow, I cant wait till I am a sportscaster. Thats going to suck sounding enthused about something I'm not.
posted by tina at 11:20 PM on August 07, 2005
We get it here (Australia) just about live in the wee hours of the morning. On free to air. Which means my athletics memories work like this - 'Mike Powell's long jump in Tokyo? It was 1991, cos I was up in the middle of the night nursing my first born'.
posted by owlhouse at 11:20 PM on August 07, 2005
Ahhh the good ol' memories. :)
posted by tina at 11:45 PM on August 07, 2005
tina, out of 9 (now 10) comments, you've posted 4. As someone who's gone to school for sportscasting, if you think track is the most boring thing you could possibly watch, you've got another thing coming. You'll wind up at events that make watching paint dry seem like high drama. I would have loved to watch this, even on delay.
posted by chicobangs at 12:11 AM on August 08, 2005
Yes I know this. And I never said track was boring. And every broadcaster has to report about something they are not interested in, its a fact. And as for my now 5 posts, this is a forum, and I have something to say. End of discussion. : )
posted by tina at 12:46 AM on August 08, 2005
And as for my now 5 posts, this is a forum, and I have something to say. End of discussion. : ) End of discussion? What discussion? Those five posts all boil down to, "I think track is boring." I think we figured it out the first time. Speaking for myself, I think golf is boring, but I recognize that people participating in golf threads are interested in talking about golf, not in hearing my opinion that their sport is boring.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:37 AM on August 08, 2005
Watching athletics is a bit like watching test cricket - the magic moments are so much more magic when you've invested days of your time watching the build-up and getting emotionally involved. But that doesn't lend itself to a modern "show me the best bits in a twenty minute (with ten minutes of adverts interspersed) highlights programme" Personally, I love both athletics and test cricket, but I'm not immune from switching either of them off and finding something less boring to do when they get a bit dull at times.
posted by JJ at 07:01 AM on August 08, 2005
If you're an aspiring sportscaster, Tina, would you rather broadcast track, the National Spelling Bee, World Series of Poker, or a Magic: The Gathering tournament? Americans used to love these sports in the '70s. Perhaps they still would if sportscasters were more "enthused" about them.
posted by rcade at 07:11 AM on August 08, 2005
Part of what makes the BBC coverage good is Michael Johnson - he has the authority through what he achieved, but he also speaks very well.
posted by JJ at 07:31 AM on August 08, 2005
blue riband ?
posted by evil empire at 07:38 AM on August 08, 2005
I saw the race and Gatlin looks very good. He had a very mediocre start and then at about the 60m mark just put it into next gear and blew the field away. I read today it was the largest margin of victory in the history of the world championships. 15 years ago that would have meant about $15 million. Today - not so much. I think, ultimately, it's not the lack of enthusiasm from sportscasters, but the rampant cheating that has turned viewers off - no one wants to fall in love with a guy who could be found to be cheating down the road.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:58 AM on August 08, 2005
I live in Canada now (go CBC!) and the championships were on here. I spent Sunday with my father-in-law watching much of it and, as God is my witness, I was entertained. ENTERTAINED, people! I don't know a javelin from a Javelin, but it sure beats the crap out of the WSOP.
posted by wfrazerjr at 08:28 AM on August 08, 2005
Wow, I cant wait till I am a sportscaster. I can't wait either, because that will give me even more reason not to watch Cold Pizza.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:47 AM on August 08, 2005
Listen, if you can put Skip Bayless out of work, good on you. Even if you sat across from Woody Paige and yawned like Daria every time a new topic came up, that would be an improvement.
posted by chicobangs at 09:00 AM on August 08, 2005
Wow, I cant wait till I am a sportscaster. Holy crap. I'm going to go out on a limb here...knowing I'll catch 11 shades of hell for this... tina, you're blonde, aren't you?
posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 12:10 PM on August 08, 2005
...you'll catch no hell here Texan!... It's a little disappointing that ESPN now seems to be more about the E than the S. WSoP can be interesting bet it is E(ntertainment) not S(port). You'd think they could allocate a few of those hours for real sporting events such as the track & field championships; maybe that would help generate some interest more often than every 4 yrs in the olympics!
posted by gr8czrsgost at 12:31 PM on August 08, 2005
I'm blonde ;-) (but I don't really wanna be a sportscaster)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:25 PM on August 08, 2005
Just for kicks, I timed myself on a track this weekend running some of the distances that interest me: the 100, 400, and 1500. Kind of like what JJ's doing, only with 1/1000 of the effort. There's no way I'm embarrassing myself by posting the times, but let's just say I have a ton more respect for the athletes.
posted by dusted at 02:30 PM on August 08, 2005
Feel better, dusted -- except for the 100, most people can't even run that far.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:36 PM on August 08, 2005
yeah lbb...but this joke wouldn't apply to you: What's the difference between a blonde and a mosquito? A mosquito stops sucking when you slap it. /where's my hell-catcher?!;-)
posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 03:00 PM on August 08, 2005
ESPN needs competition. It's become bloated. Maybe a channel that is NHL-centric, with additional emphasis on 'fringe ' sporting events would do the trick.
posted by garfield at 03:01 PM on August 08, 2005
ESPN needs competition. It'll never happen . ESPN started small showing more E than S but worked its way up to this monster that can only be killed by itself . It would be financial suicide to challenge them and they know it . They have and or can get, any sport they want . College Sports Television seems willing to give it a try but that is limited to of course college sports only .
posted by evil empire at 03:22 PM on August 08, 2005
"Any sport they want" equals American football, baseball, basketball, maybe now some hockey, some tennis, a little X games...and poker. That's some kind of wide world, all right.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:31 PM on August 08, 2005
They do show alot of tennis just not live , but you forgot boxing , auto racing , golf and I believe soccer , I dont watch it but i think i've seen it occasionally as I passed by it .
posted by evil empire at 03:51 PM on August 08, 2005
TLIN, quit while you're behind.
posted by yerfatma at 03:56 PM on August 08, 2005
Actually no I am not Texan
posted by tina at 04:02 PM on August 08, 2005
I'll keep going. Thanks all the same.
posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 04:02 PM on August 08, 2005
ok tina...looks like I'm off on predictions today...was just having a little fun.
posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 04:04 PM on August 08, 2005
Thats ok, I will try to forget you thought I was blonde. Oh and on a side note, I used to run track in middle school. So no I don't think track is boring.
posted by tina at 04:23 PM on August 08, 2005
And people make fun of NASCAR fans for watching someone drive around in a circle.
posted by volfire at 04:49 PM on August 08, 2005
volfire, it's more exciting when they run. Especially hurdles. You want carnage, situate yourself near the last couple in the 300 IH. ee, actually ESPN does a pretty good job of live tennis IMO, at least for the bigs. Wimbledon, the French Open, the US Open, every morning for a couple of hours at least. And they replay some of them, although I'm not sure if that's done only when there's a rain delay or rainout on the live stuff. I'd always like more, but I've been pretty pleased with their tennis coverage. But their winter sports coverage is nonexistant outside the X games and hockey, which hasn't qualified as a winter sport since they started locating teams in places like Florida and California. Oh, and a few twirl girls.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:05 PM on August 08, 2005
Oddly enough, OLN, as an arm of Comcast, might be the one that eventually make a run at EssPN. Especially if they can take a more sober tone that I've been missing from the folks in Bristol over the last 15 years. (Excuse if this has been discussed on earlier threads.) The tough part about taking on ESPN is that they do execute a lot of things quite well. In fact, I wish they would highlight those things better, instead of their god awful dramatic productions. The reportage gets buried underneath a lot of yelling, trivia challenges and other nonsense. CSTV has been a big disappointment -- way too many non-important games aired several months after the actual event, for instance. And that's saying a lot, because I didn't expect a whole lot. The only good thing for them is that ESPNU isn't any great shakes, either.
posted by jackhererra at 05:22 PM on August 08, 2005
Well, if Comcast handles OLN as well as they did G4 + TechTV . . . they'll need some credibility first, unless Ed Berliner and Lou Tilley pull each other's head out of their respective asses post-haste.
posted by yerfatma at 05:33 PM on August 08, 2005
CSTV has been a big disappointment -- way too many non-important games aired several months after the actual event I think once college starts up again you will see alot better programming . Last year was just a start and should improve each year as did the original ESPN . They don't exactly have a huge library of games to choose from yet .
posted by evil empire at 06:48 PM on August 08, 2005
Well, Comcast is f'in stupid. If they gave CSTV to me for the $60+ we pay for Comcast cable tv, I'd provide some eyeballs (two) during college lacrosse games. Why not make the product attractive before you try to get someone to pay for it?
posted by yerfatma at 07:09 PM on August 08, 2005
You don't gotta rub it in.