| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Speebs56
Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Posts: 228
Location: Orange county, CA
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/21/16 6:24 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
Point well taken. However, at least when calling the game meant you had to know how to describe what was occurring on the court, we could typically expect knowledge of the game and less time for rambling, gossipy babble.
Some of the commentary regarding the state of a program can be helpful. If a player has struggled and broadcasters can provide insight that isn't widely known, I appreciate that. But conjecture with no basis in fact -- not so much.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/21/16 7:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Speebs56 wrote: |
Point well taken. However, at least when calling the game meant you had to know how to describe what was occurring on the court, we could typically expect knowledge of the game and less time for rambling, gossipy babble.
Some of the commentary regarding the state of a program can be helpful. If a player has struggled and broadcasters can provide insight that isn't widely known, I appreciate that. But conjecture with no basis in fact -- not so much. |
They do assume you can 'see' the game, but as someone who listens with a non-sighted person, I can tell you that some are MUCH better at describing the play than others. If all they say is 'oh, Ohio State scored again the last time down the floor' and then go back to gossiping about what Kelsey Mitchell ate for lunch yesterday and why her teammates were teasing her because... - it's a whole lot different than saying 'what a beautiful screen by Hart to give Mitchell that look from 15 feet'. They CAN talk about the game without it being exactly like a radio announcer, though for us, we do often 'watch' a game on tv with the sound off and listen to the radio version if it's available, because that's a whole lot easier for the blind person. If there's no radio available, we often mute it anyway while I 'call' the game. I recognize of course that we are unusual fans, but still... and yes, if you listen to a men's game they almost always actually call the game. Try sitting with your eyes closed sometime for a few minutes and you'll see what I mean.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
Speebs56
Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Posts: 228
Location: Orange county, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/21/16 7:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| Speebs56 wrote: |
Point well taken. However, at least when calling the game meant you had to know how to describe what was occurring on the court, we could typically expect knowledge of the game and less time for rambling, gossipy babble.
Some of the commentary regarding the state of a program can be helpful. If a player has struggled and broadcasters can provide insight that isn't widely known, I appreciate that. But conjecture with no basis in fact -- not so much. |
They do assume you can 'see' the game, but as someone who listens with a non-sighted person, I can tell you that some are MUCH better at describing the play than others. If all they say is 'oh, Ohio State scored again the last time down the floor' and then go back to gossiping about what Kelsey Mitchell ate for lunch yesterday and why her teammates were teasing her because... - it's a whole lot different than saying 'what a beautiful screen by Hart to give Mitchell that look from 15 feet'. They CAN talk about the game without it being exactly like a radio announcer, though for us, we do often 'watch' a game on tv with the sound off and listen to the radio version if it's available, because that's a whole lot easier for the blind person. If there's no radio available, we often mute it anyway while I 'call' the game. I recognize of course that we are unusual fans, but still... and yes, if you listen to a men's game they almost always actually call the game. Try sitting with your eyes closed sometime for a few minutes and you'll see what I mean. |
I grew up listening to Chick Hearn call Laker games and I could always "see" what he was describing. I appreciate your post and the unique experience you describe. I'm not sure today's announcers could call a game like those "back in the day". It doesn't seem to be a skill that is developed anymore.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11145
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/16 10:20 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Chick Hearn and others were trained as radio announcers, which is a much different skill than TV. The NBA radio guys are all pretty good, at least those I've heard ...
Back in the day, when the transition was first being made from radio to TV, announcers would go on TV and do radio style, which was really annoying because much of the description demanded by radio was superfluous to a TV audience.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Speebs56
Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Posts: 228
Location: Orange county, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/16 11:49 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Chick Hearn and others were trained as radio announcers, which is a much different skill than TV. The NBA radio guys are all pretty good, at least those I've heard ...
Back in the day, when the transition was first being made from radio to TV, announcers would go on TV and do radio style, which was really annoying because much of the description demanded by radio was superfluous to a TV audience. |
So now we're at the point where women's b-ball announcers (in the main) couldn't "call" a game if they had to. And when listening to Chick do a TV broadcast, his radio style didn't seem superfluous to me.
<sigh> I guess I'm just too old school to tolerate the lack of insight from so many announcers -- many of whom I'd expect would be able to provide more.
|
|
|
|
