- This topic has 104 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Aussie Jim is a class act, love the guy’s work. This ‘investigation’ is madness.
He’s one of the worst commentators going. His choice of words and phrases are poor to say the least whilst his ability to call a race isn’t exactly stunning. Countless times he forgets to mention a horse who has been in the finishing frame for the duration of the end of the race only to then suddenly say "and from the clouds".
His voice is subjective, and personally i don’t really like it, but i struggle to understand how anybody could objectively suggest he’s a competent commentator at this point. Especially incomparison to Hoiles, Holt, Machin etc.
About time too, he’s rubbish. I feel insulted when I pay money to get in a racecourse and find the management have employed him rather than one of the good commentators, it feels as if they don’t care about their customers. It also annoys me that what little of my TV license money is spent on racing coverage is half-wasted by using him.
A follow-up report in the Racing Post today says that the BBC has full confidence in Jim McGrath but that Darren Owen is under review as a racecourse commentator.
The BBC says it is giving its unequivocal support to Jim with the words: "We remain very happy with Jim’s performance on the BBC.
"He’s had a very strong year for us, most notably in the Derby where he brilliantly called one of the most dramatic finishes of recent times."
Darren Owen is named as one of the other racecourse commentators said to be under six monthly review. I wouldn’t have predicted him because I think he does a good job as a racecourse commentator.
He declined to comment when contacted by the Racing Post, perhaps wisely after the injudicious words of Jim McGrath. No point making things worse.
The BBC has also backed him as one of its Grand National team, saying: "We are also happy that Darren remains a key part of our Grand National team."If the powers-that-be are determined to get rid of some commentators or force them out, I dread to think what will happen if Matt Chapman joins the roster full-time.
He was at his most embarrassing on At The Races today when having a juvenile and not-at-all-funny exchange with commentator John Hunt, who was predictably described as "one of our finest" and "top-notch".
Chapman embarrassed even Hunt by asking him what he was hoping for in his Christmas stocking. Having put Hunt on the spot and failed to get a semblance of a humorous ad lib out of him, Chapman returned to the theme in the next race at Wolverhampton.
Having had all that time to think of a suitable riposte, "Hunty", as he called him, told our hero that he was hoping for "pants and socks" in his Christmas stocking.
Surely one of the most embarrassing and toe-curlingly excruciating exchanges we have been subjected to from Chapman. I felt sorry for Hunt that he was subjected to such ridiculous so-called banter from Chapman. It was made even worse by Hunt’s complete inability to think of a suitably witty one-liner or putdown in reply.
If perfectly good racecourse commentators face losing their jobs to make way for this buffoon (Chapman) on the rota next year, Heaven help us if he is let loose on the racegoing public as well.
I know a lot of people think he’s great but this puerile exchange really was "pants", in more ways than one.Maybe it will get him to pull his finger out, he needs to, he’s been dire for years, how come he doesn’t know that? Cut out all that settling down as they settle crap and maybe start spotting one or two fallers for a change.
Bernie at the BBC is a waste of time, he always says they’ve done a fantastic job no matter what cock ups they produce.As for Darren Owen, you should not underestimate the sound of a commentators voice, like Bartletts, Owens isn’t very good, a bit like a dalek I’ve heard it said.
You can’t beat the dulcet tones of a Holt or O’Sullevan.Jim was on duty at Ludlow today and didn’t exactly cover himself in glory in the second last. To be honest his style grates on me especially the use of the term ‘possie’.
As for Darren Owen, you should not underestimate the sound of a commentators voice, like Bartletts, Owens isn’t very good, a bit like a dalek I’ve heard it said.
You can’t beat the dulcet tones of a Holt or O’Sullevan.Darren Owen does sound like a dalek at times, I must admit. Not quite as bad as the BBC’s pompous Business Editor, Robert Peston.
Pint-sized Darren is, as I have said, the best of the BBC Grand National commentary team, in my eyes. They seem to like him at Carlisle, too.
Once when I was at Beverley when he was the course commentator quite a few years ago, he did the pre-race bits in a very American style, for some reason, saying: "They’re trackside for the fourth race" etc.
Every time I go in a William Hill betting shop, he seems to be there, seemingly in Gordon Brown’s ill-fitting outsize jacket, doing a rundown on the form before certain races. Er, thanks, Gordie.…… but that Darren Owen is under review as a racecourse commentator.
As that information is now in the public domain I will make the comment that has to be one of the most perverse decisions I have heard in a long time.
Darren is a perfectly capable, technically competent, good, what I would call "safe" commentator. That his performance should be under any sort of review absolutely beggars belief.
…… but that Darren Owen is under review as a racecourse commentator.
As that information is now in the public domain I will make the comment that has to be one of the most perverse decisions I have heard in a long time.
Darren is a perfectly capable, technically competent, good, what I would call "safe" commentator. That his performance should be under any sort of review absolutely beggars belief.I quite agree. As I said earlier today, I would never have predicted that Darren Owen would be one of those whose performance seems to be being questioned.
It’s absolutely ludicrous. You can sort of understand it with Jim McGrath but never would I have picked out Darren as one those under threat.
I went through the list of commentators and picked out the ones I thought were likely to be on the hit list. Might need to adjust the shortlist now that Darren, a 33-1 shot, has come in.
It’s easier when speculating about the others to cross off the names of the obviously favoured top-ranking ones and work backwards. The answers should become clear.
Paul obviously knows the names, I suspect, but is too professional and loyal, with his regular contacts with those involved, to divulge them.
It must be old age catching up with me but I hate it when people who are doing their best, often of more senior years, are brutally cast aside or, at least, taking the first steps to being given the boot. Darren is obviously younger, however.
I wonder what criteria those on this all-powerful user group are using.
They’re not going to go through this process and then keep everybody who is under review on. Not with Uncle Matt Chapman and the others knocking on the door, leaving aside Filly Factor trainee Hayley Moore, who might get a job in the next couple of years if she makes the grade during the training.
But I also recognise the point that there are several commentators who are arguably past their sell-by date. It’s a shame but I suppose it’s a sad reality of life.
Well done to the Racing Post for its stories.……
I wonder what criteria those on this all-powerful user group are using.
.The same criteria that is always used Crusty. Not to upset Hoiles, Machin and Holt, then **** the rest!!
I think McGrath is as good as any previously mentioned and certainly better than Thommo (annoying) McKenzie (OTT) and Machin (robotic sounding) but what I find impossible to get over with McGrath is that he seems to have absolutely zero sense of humour when he features ( when not commentating) on the BBC or ATR……..unable to generate any excitement and leaves an impression that he takes himself too seriously.
what I find impossible to get over with McGrath is that he seems to have absolutely zero sense of humour
He certainly isn’t the only one who seems to have had a sense of humour bypass. The prize must go to John Hunt after his performance yesterday on At The Races during the exchange with Matt Chapman mentioned earlier about what he would like to find in his Christmas stocking.
After first floundering and saying he would have to think about it, the best he could come up with half an hour later was "pants and socks". What was obviously required was a light-hearted pearl of wisdom or one-liner, or failing that, a dose of sarcasm to put Chapman in his place. Hunt certainly wasn’t short of sarcasm in a couple of humourless broadsides to me a few weeks ago.
Then, at the next handover, there was total silence when Chapman asked him another embarrassing question. Hunt made out he was doing something else and couldn’t hear Chapman.
Seems unlikely, or at best unprofessional, after what we have been told about commentators having the constant At The Races feed in the earphones.
Whatever the truth of the situation, surely treating yourself to an off-the-cuff witty remark would have been the best answer to Chapman’s messing about. Total pants.I wonder what criteria those on this all-powerful user group are using.
The same criteria that is always used Crusty. Not to upset Hoiles, Machin and Holt, then **** the rest!!
Sounds about right. Richard Hoiles seems to bear a charmed life. He is undoubtedly very good, has a fine voice and must be one of the most perceptive observers of a race in the business.
Uses some good phrases, notably "so-and-so has broken his heart" or "he wears his heart on his sleeve".
He is also very good as a presenter, pundit and tipster. A good all-rounder. No surprise to see he is leading the field in the Commentator of the Year vote in this forum’s annual awards.
Difficult to fault Simon Holt. Great voice and delivery. Did a good job the other day at one of his regular haunts at Plumpton.He certainly isn’t the only one who seems to have had a sense of humour bypass. The prize must go to John Hunt after his performance yesterday on At The Races during the exchange with Matt Chapman mentioned earlier about what he would like to find in his Christmas stocking.
After first floundering and saying he would have to think about it, the best he could come up with half an hour later was "pants and socks". What was obviously required was a light-hearted pearl of wisdom or one-liner, or failing that, a dose of sarcasm to put Chapman in his place. Hunt certainly wasn’t short of sarcasm in a couple of humourless broadsides to me a few weeks ago.
Then, at the next handover, there was total silence when Chapman asked him another embarrassing question. Hunt made out he was doing something else and couldn’t hear Chapman.
Seems unlikely, or at best unprofessional, after what we have been told about commentators having the constant At The Races feed in the earphones.
Whatever the truth of the situation, surely treating yourself to an off-the-cuff witty remark would have been the best answer to Chapman’s messing about. Total pants.Totally disagree with you. The commentator is employed to commentate on the race not to be some sort of stooge for purile attempts at banter from some fool in a studio. (BTW would you have been as critical had it been somebody other than John Hunt?)
There was a brilliant example when Chapman was presenting
Towcester TV
and he attempted to get Barty to do a phantom commentary of how he thought the feature race would finish, after gatecrashing into the commentary box – it’s a shame Barty’s response is not recorded for posterity but his, laconic dry put down had those of us who heard it absolutely wetting ourselves with laughter.
He certainly isn’t the only one who seems to have had a sense of humour bypass. The prize must go to John Hunt after his performance yesterday on At The Races during the exchange with Matt Chapman mentioned earlier about what he would like to find in his Christmas stocking.
After first floundering and saying he would have to think about it, the best he could come up with half an hour later was "pants and socks". What was obviously required was a light-hearted pearl of wisdom or one-liner, or failing that, a dose of sarcasm to put Chapman in his place. Hunt certainly wasn’t short of sarcasm in a couple of humourless broadsides to me a few weeks ago.
Then, at the next handover, there was total silence when Chapman asked him another embarrassing question. Hunt made out he was doing something else and couldn’t hear Chapman.
Seems unlikely, or at best unprofessional, after what we have been told about commentators having the constant At The Races feed in the earphones.
Whatever the truth of the situation, surely treating yourself to an off-the-cuff witty remark would have been the best answer to Chapman’s messing about. Total pants.Totally disagree with you. The commentator is employed to commentate on the race not to be some sort of stooge for purile attempts at banter from some fool in a studio. (BTW would you have been as critical had it been somebody other than John Hunt?)
I’ve said many times that Matt Chapman’s pantomime antics are totally ridiculous and bring At The Races into disrepute — but for some reason, people seem to like and defend his fake, matey and embarrassing antics.
I’ve said several times on other threads that at least Tony Ennis and Sean Boyce do it straight when they are in the booth, not forgetting Mike Cattermole, Gina Bryce, Martin Kelly and Gary O’Brien.
The point is that, if the handover presenter or "some fool in a studio" IS messing about and is NOT doing it straight, as I would wish, then you might think that the commentator would have the presence of mind and broadcasting ability to go along with it and not make a bigger idiot of themselves. The commentator shouldn’t be put in that position at all, is my point.
Some of the other At The Races presenters, notably Gina Bryce, hand over so late that the horses have often run nearly a furlong before they do so. Problem solved for the commentator.
It’s only Chapman who seems to indulge in this cringe-making fake banter by handing over so early.
Nothing wrong with speaking to the commentator if they are being asked for their views on the race. A pain in the neck but permissible. Surely nobody watching at home seriously wants to hear fake conversations about what commentators want for Christmas. But Matt Chapman has won a broadcaster of the year award so perhaps people do want this.
The art of being a good broadcaster or commentator is being able to think quickly on your feet when put on the spot or when something goes wrong. John Hunt was lamentably found wanting yesterday but the point is he shouldn’t have been put in that position of making a fool of himself through his inability to ad lib. As I said, I actually felt sorry for him.
Why somebody doesn’t quietly have a word with Chapman off-air and ask him to tone down his antics is beyond me. It must turn off more viewers than it entertains.
The commentator should be left to commentate, not join in a pantomime of excruciating banality. I quite agree on that. But, by the same token, if they are dragged by another person’s tomfoolery into an embarrassing situation into which they would rather not be placed, they should be agile enough of mind to be able to talk their way out of it with humour and keep their dignity intact.CrustyPatch,
You underestimate John Hunt, although I didn’t hear both sides of yesterdays exchange (I try to mute as much as possible when Chapman is talking) John Hunt has got the better of Chapman 99% of the time in the past usually with acid wit. Maybe he had something more important to do yesterday like learn his colours or watch the horses to post.
Personally if I was a commentator I would not converse at all with Chapman but others like Hunt are happy to do so, that is there choice but whether someone higher up should put a stop to it is a good question, I would be in favour of that to put a stop to Chapman’s boring, childish antics (at least when handing over to the commentator).
Sad to see in today’s Racing Post that two other commentators being put under six-monthly review are Iain Mackenzie and Derek Thompson.
Sorry to see that my prediction has come sadly true. It was blindingly obvious it would be them as they, along with Jim McGrath, are the oldest.
Newmarket, Fakenham and Musselburgh have come to Tommo’s defence by saying they are very pleased with his commentaries for them. Quite right too, although I realise I am very much in a minority on this (no change there).
Members of the Commentator User Group politburo are quoted as making it clear that they "had hoped that news of the review process would not enter the public domain and were shocked to read McGrath expressing his anger and sadness in Tuesday’s Racing Post."
The commentators involved had been told, in another Stalinist twist, that their contracts would be terminated if they spoke to the press. Jim’s future prospects look grim and a spell in the frozen wastes of Siberia looks inevitable.
Good reports in the Racing Post but you would think that Lee Mottershead, its supposedly star reporter, basking in his current glory, could manage to spell Iain Mackenzie’s surname properly and not as McKenzie (again).
The first requisite of a good reporter, even a supposed reporter of the year, is to manage to get the basics right and check on the spelling of Mackenzie’s surname. It’s not as though Mackenzie hasn’t been around for decades. Very slack.
Lee McKenzie is confirmed in the report as taking a year off from the commentary rota to concentrate on other assignments, such as the London Olympics.
The writing is definitely on the wall for Tommo and Iain Mackenzie and, as for Jim, he might as well give his notice in now and go with dignity. I still can’t get over Darren Owen’s inclusion, though.
The celebrations will be starting from fellow forum contributors about Tommo’s likely imminent receipt of the Order of the Boot.
No doubt we will be told that it is just a review and that no decisions have been taken. It’s a bit like that during redundancy "consultations". It’s just a process they go through to make it legal and watertight. Nobody ever comes out of these consultations not getting the axe if they have been marked out for the chop.
Again, like JA, Tommo has plenty of other sources of income and, unlike Jim, is known for his love of freebies, but with his reduced role on Channel 4 continuing, it could be that Tommo will not be heard or seen much either in six months time. There — don’t say I didn’t give his critics some festive cheer.
"By Jove, I tell you what, Big Feller, enjoy the moment."This is looking like an age-ist thing to me. Jim McGrath, Iain Mackenzie and Derek Thompson are, without being rude, of advanced years but that doesn’t mean they aren’t good commentators and don’t deserve being replaced.
Can anyone seriously argue they would rather hear Matt Chapman than Thommo? I don’t, and avoid Chapman whenever I can as he’s a twit and dread him doing any of his excrable yee-haas. On the contrary Thommo brings some fun to our sport, especially at courses such as Newcastle and I’m sure others.
I think I’m right in saying that with the unfortunate death of Dougie Fraser, this led to Iain Mackenzie commentating at more race meetings this year, and find him an excellent racecaller with great racing knowledge. There is no sense in replacing him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.