- This topic has 24 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Only ask the question because I am getting increasingly irritated listening to Mick Fitzgerald who appears to be the first choice for all broadcasters.
I don’t mind some of them but when they start going on about how you can’t tell what happens in a race unless you’ve ridden in one it annoys the hell out of me.
I’ve driven a car and can tell a bad F1 drive, played rugby to a decent enough level and can tell a bad pass/kick, played football and can tell when teams played poorly so why not a bad ride when i’ve ridden a horse?
Oh and the sooner they get jockeys appologist Josh Apiafi off the television the better.
I feel that the point of a pundit should be to use their experience and knowledge to point out things in the event that us viewers don’t see first time around.
I’m not an experienced race watcher so when I listen to pundits I want them to tell me or make me notice something I haven’t seen with my own eyes to help me understand why an event has occured and the subsequent consequences that follow.
Personally I like Mick and enjoy listening to him.
MF was always destined for the airwaves once retired as he is capable of using 900 words when 9 would suffice
Being full of pre-Cheltenham goodwill I’d opine that the thoughts of jockeys are just a tad less interesting than those of trainers
he never misses to grow eloquent
’tis he may clamber to a lady’s chamber
or become a member of Parliament.
a noble spouter he’ll sure turn out
or an out and outer to be let alone
don’t try to hinder him or to bewilder him
for he is a pilgrim from the Blarney stoneTotally agree Gazza. Man was a brilliant judge when riding and he seldom says anything just for the sake of saying it.
John Francome was also an excellent judge of a horse when riding but now is playing a role for the producers to keep the program entertaining for the layman. I have met him several times and his fav pastime while riding was taking the piss. Having watched several recordings on John Boy prattling on and I am sure he is still taking the piss and doesn’t believe half of what he says and the other half he makes up as he goes along.
Luke Harvey is too mamsy pamsy for me and seems not to have an opinion on anything. He’s an annoying little crawler and they should replace him with the man from County Fermanagh Barney Curley to liven the place up.
Barney and Francome V Big Mac would be better than Eastenders in it’s heyday
I agree that MF is a wonderful guy, but he was the one I was going to have a whinge about. Corals were advertising an exclusive, when I knew he had already previewed the races for ATR.
I’ve got a lot of time for Richard Dunwoody when he appears on the BBC; and I love that TV commercial he’s just done; it makes me chuckle every time I see it.
- Total Posts 17716
I’d take 1 Mick Fitzgerald against 10 pundits ‘that think they know’, any day of the week.
His insights, as with many recently retired top jockeys, can give far more information about what actually happened in a race than the legion of ‘guessers’ that make up the usual crew of TV presenters, on whatever channel.Mick Fitzgerald is (understandably) so biased towards Nicky Henderson’s horses. His views aren’t neutral so I don’t pay much attention to them although in truth I don’t pay much attention to any "experts" views in the main. On the odd occasion I’ll just hear something that makes sense and keep it in mind.
John Francome was also an excellent judge of a horse when riding but now is playing a role for the producers to keep the program entertaining for the layman. I have met him several times and his fav pastime while riding was taking the piss. Having watched several recordings on John Boy prattling on and I am sure he is still taking the piss and doesn’t believe half of what he says and the other half he makes up as he goes along.
Dont understand what he is saying all the time but the guy emanates a high level of BS off the screen, which makes him rather endearing imo.
As for Mick Fitzgerald, his lengthy excursions always keep me listening.
I’d take 1 Mick Fitzgerald against 10 pundits ‘that think they know’, any day of the week.
His insights, as with many recently retired top jockeys, can give far more information about what actually happened in a race than the legion of ‘guessers’ that make up the usual crew of TV presenters, on whatever channel.Completely disagree with you, RH.
As with snooker, cricket, football and athletics (particularly the slab-like Roger Black), this strange perception that people who have played a sport are more qualified to comment on it than someone who hasn’t is the biggest myth since the one about starving nurses giving amateur kidney removal operations after one night stands.
I have never, ever learnt anything from an ex-sportsman. They don’t have the required eloquence, the objectivity, the training, the experience, or the full range of vocabulary necessary to make a telling point, a contextual insight.
Why would they? They were practicing their art when the rest of us were watching it!
Aristotle, Ovid, Sophocles and Cicero never did a great deal other than sit about in olive groves thinking about higher matters, but their insights moved humanity onto a different plane.
I would rather have a "guesser" like, say, John Arlott tell me what’s going on than an ex-sportsman like Vic Marks who is the writing equivalent of a bolster splitting a housebrick to fit an odd space in the sequence.
Or a "guesser" like Peter O’ Sullivan, Wilson, Lydia, Tony Morris, James Willoughby, our own AP, Cunningham, Prufrock, Paul Haigh or many other obsessed, but necessarily dispassionate observers who have never been near a pair of riding boots but have watched a million horse races.
Because while Fitz, Dale, Ray Cochrane and the Weavershark were riding their arses off at five in the morning, those above were learning to think, present and write at a deep level. Let’s hope the dispassionate obsessives continue to get the chance to demonstrate their learning.
IMO, of course.
Max
I can’t agree with you about Ovid. Metamophoses overrated. (Just joking.)
I think two of the greatest contributors were Herodotus & Thucydides. Now Thucydides was an ex-General, and his writing on the Peloponesian War is without parallel. Just read his description of the Civil War in Corcyra.
Gerald
IMO, of course.
And mine, Max – excellent post.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
A pundit’s personality is equally as important as their knowledge, in my opinion. You can’t have one without the other.
We can all identify sportsman who will obviously work in television when their playing careers are over, and it’s not necessarily the most talented individuals.
Jamie Redknapp was a fine payer. The best? No, but he had the right looks and likable personality to make it as a football pundit. Mark Bright, Steve Claridge, Gavin Peacock etc etc are also prime examples.
John Francombe and Fitz were both from the top rung of the ladder during their respective eras. They also have the personality to communicate their knowledge. When they talk, I want to listen.
Richard Dunwoody was arguably an even better jockey – certainly one of the best I’ve seen. A great guy with infinite knowledge, but I wouldn’t call him a natural in front of the camera. He looks quite uncomfortable on occasions – perhaps a sign of his modesty.
Compared to Fitz, who was more than happy to say that winning the Grand National was better than sex on live television and John Francombe, well, as stated, he loves taking the piss.
The ability to communicate is vital.
got a lot of time for him 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.