- This topic has 100 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
But I still can’t understand what affect his behaviour can have on serious punters – if they really are, not that I care about that.
So they smash the TV because Chapman enjoyed something, do they?
I think Chapman is like Big Mac – totally natural in front of a mike/camera, and the Producers and Directors know that such talent is rare to find. Yes, I can see how both these guys can wind people up, but they do know their racing history and are able to contextualise key events in a way many presenters cannot.
They are clearly passionate, and whilst I am not saying that they are any more passionate than their colleagues, they are certainly much more adept at putting that passion across to the viewer.
They do have massive egos, but doesn’t an outsized ego always come with anyone prepared to stand up and present?
Personally I could listen to the Julian Wilson’s, Clive Graham’s, and Peter O’Sullevan’s all day, but some people would dismiss that trio as rubbish.
Agree with the final poster, Big Mac and Chapman are good for the sport. I must say I find it odd Chapman’s work is yet to extend beyond ATR/SIS? Is this because he wants it that way, or is his style/ego too much for the modern terrestrial boradcasters to stomach? If that is the case this is sad as given the two characters Big Mac is clearly being replaced with on C4 you have to ask why Chapman is not being groomed for that role?
Agree with the final poster, Big Mac and Chapman are good for the sport. I must say I find it odd Chapman’s work is yet to extend beyond ATR/SIS? Is this because he wants it that way, or is his style/ego too much for the modern terrestrial boradcasters to stomach? If that is the case this is sad as given the two characters Big Mac is clearly being replaced with on C4 you have to ask why Chapman is not being groomed for that role?
That’s why we have the completely forgettable Tom Lee on C4. Every-time I suffer him, I realise I’ve completely wasted that amount of time for the rest of my like and I will never get it back. Thankfully I make it around 2 seconds + whatever time the Sky box takes to turn the channel over, which is longer since the new EPG guide.
I do find some of the criticism of Chapman incredible. He is not clueless, despite what some people may think. He retains an incredible on air enthusiasm, generally speaking, for most of the rubbish he has to try to "sell" to the viewers. And at a time where many people feel there is "too much" Racing – who cares if Chapman wants to discuss burger vans at Killarney? I don’t. Maybe ATR could launch a burger van racecourse review series with him. Maybe if he discussed burger vans more often, more burger enthusiasts would go racing. The BHA should ask the government for a burger van levy charge on racecourses, if they haven’t already.
Burger vans are now going to solve the funding crisis.
It really is a case of what do you want? Someone who’s like an automated machine.
But Jose, the joking about Burger Vans went on for about
3 minutes, he started ‘gushing’ about how he "lovvvvvvvvvved
a bit of Tomato Ketchup" on his Burger and "make sure it’s not
burnt?!"Trust me, it was beyond silly
I suppose in someways it’s funny, I’d say more laughable
though.But Jose, the joking about Burger Vans went on for about
3 minutes, he started ‘gushing’ about how he "lovvvvvvvvvved
a bit of Tomato Ketchup" on his Burger and "make sure it’s not
burnt?!"Trust me, it was beyond silly
I suppose in someways it’s funny, I’d say more laughable
though.McDonalds adverts for Chapman then, or does his love of Tomato Ketchup rule that out? The American burger thing they did could be quite good for Matt – YEE HAA.
I can see what’s meant, but if Chapman spent a few minutes of time discussing burger vans I’m not bothered.
I am bothered, however, at the picture rights nonsense regarding the Grand Prix De Paris. Having to press the red button for the race because of SS2 viewers was just ridiculous. And there is no doubt that the picture quality behind the red button is slightly blurrier. The thing is – SS2 viewers couldn’t just be "blanked out" for 2 minutes and 33 seconds possibly with an advert break, could they? No, I mean, so many more people must watch SS2 for the "Winning Post" than ATR’s normal coverage that the SS2 viewers, who wouldn’t be able to watch this race anyway, couldn’t go for an advertising break. That is before I’ve started on the ridiculous rules and regulations on picture rights for racing globally. Who prevents/prevented SS2 from showing 1 French Group 1 race is what I want to know, and what do they gain? RUK because they share the rights, the French because they’re French – who exactly?
We can all argue till we’re blue in the face but there’s little point because it’s all a matter of taste. He gets on some people’s nerves yet others find him entertaining. To me he’s like fingernails down a blackboard.
I would never say he wasn’t a good journalist with a good deal of knowledge about his subject, I just don’t like his personality.Matthew lad, you started this thread by saying you had backed three winners and therefore weren’t having a go at Chappers because you’d lost.
Fast Forward to the middle of page two and your tune has changed. You’re now saying he’s annoying because he goes on and on and it’s the last thing you want to hear after you’ve done your coconuts.
So, do you;
a) find him annoying generally, or
b) find him annoying when you’re pi$$ed of yourself because you’ve just backed a loser?It’s easy to understand why some people find Champan annoying, but surely that’s down to them (the people) and not Chapman. Chapman can only be himself and some people will like him, some won’t, and some won’t care. Champan can’t change his personality so that he can keep everyone happy, he can only be himself.
So basically, in this world of huge choice, if you like him then great, enjoy him. But if you don’t like him then press the mute button, or switch over when the race is due off.
I have a feeling though, that the people who say they don’t like him and find him ‘infuriating’ will still listen to him just to see what he says next.
Lecture over. Now go and plonk yourself in front of the TV and watch Tiger shoot seven over par
(hopefully for my sake).I remember one day, there was a horse running that had a name which had a monkey related theme to his/her name and he started making Monkey noises in the studio
I remember one day, there was a horse running that had a name which had a monkey related theme to his/her name and he started making Monkey noises in the studio
Lol, yes that’s Matt.
There’s a horse in Ireland called Slapper. It ran on a Friday night once (I think) and Matt was going on about how you can’t beat a good Slapper on a Friday night and how the jockey was lucky to be riding a Slapper
Of course, he was talking about the horse, but everyone knows what he was referring to and it was definitely bordering on embmarrasing listening (if not controversial).
I remember one day, there was a horse running that had a name which had a monkey related theme to his/her name and he started making Monkey noises in the studio
Lol, yes that’s Matt.
There’s a horse in Ireland called Slapper. It ran on a Friday night once (I think) and Matt was going on about how you can’t beat a good Slapper on a Friday night and how the jockey was lucky to be riding a Slapper
Of course, he was talking about the horse, but everyone knows what he was referring to and it was definitely bordering on embmarrasing listening (if not controversial).
A tedious individual, seems to think everything revolves around him and his opinion and he’s so repetitive – "The Master of Rosewell" – The Master Trainer" etc every time they have a runner, it’s sooo boring.
People have to remember, the ‘SERIOUS PUNTERS’ are going to tune in and watch irrespective of the presenter. Matt Chapman’s job is to attract the casual fan, flicking through the channels, and get them to stay and watch and come back again and watch. Seriously, people need to understand that the presenter is not there for your own personal needs.
Matt Chapman, Robert Cooper and Derek Thompson are all great entertainment. Look at other sports and be grateful.
Yeah id say compare them three to other sports!!
heh heh they are as bigger clowns as the pundits other sports have IMHO
You want entertainment go up the West End and see a show, you want sport watch the horse racing
My only criticism of Chappers in the past has been when I thought he was coming across as somewhat abrasive and dismissive of one or two of his colleagues. At the time his apparent put-downs made for uncomfortable viewing.
As for his race-reading and knowledge about horses he’s in the Premier League of presenters, Matthew01.
Instead of you criticising Chapman seemingly just for the sake of being critical it would be interesting to know exactly how you would keep viewers entertained for a few hours at a time? Perhaps your take on it would be along the lines of "What a ride from Fallon"/"What a ride from McCoy"/"What a dress on Emma"/"I’ve just had three winners". The viewers would be turning off in their droves if that was the limit of your show, whereas that seems to be the limit of your threads on here, Matthew.
Before Cormack intervenes again I’m sure Matthew can accept criticism where criticism is due. By the way, there’s a deafening silence from you in relation to my earlier questions, Matthew.My only criticism of Chappers in the past has been when I thought he was coming across as somewhat abrasive and dismissive of one or two of his colleagues. At the time his apparent put-downs made for uncomfortable viewing.
As for his race-reading and knowledge about horses he’s in the Premier League of presenters, Matthew01.
Instead of you criticising Chapman seemingly just for the sake of being critical it would be interesting to know exactly how you would keep viewers entertained for a few hours at a time? Perhaps your take on it would be along the lines of "What a ride from Fallon"/"What a ride from McCoy"/"What a dress on Emma"/"I’ve just had three winners". The viewers would be turning off in their droves if that was the limit of your show, whereas that seems to be the limit of your threads on here, Matthew.
Before Cormack intervenes again I’m sure Matthew can accept criticism where criticism is due. By the way, there’s a deafening silence from you in relation to my earlier questions, Matthew.That’s very unfair Conundrum. Matthew is criticising someone how he see’s fit, he’s not criticising someone saying that he can do better.
I’m sure at sometime in your life you’ve criticised a ride by a jockey. At that time (if it indeed did happen) were you asked to ride a horse better than the jockey you were criticisng?
I’ve only been a member on here for four weeks (if not less) and one of the first threads that caught my eye was a thread that was criticising Matthew for the quality of his threads. The answer is very simple in my opinion; if people who dissapprove of Matthew’s threads then all they have to do when they see a thread started by him is not read.
Personally I find Matthew very entertaining. He is likeable, witty, down to earth, not scared to praise/criticise people and very enthusiastic. People enjoy different tastes of cups of tea in this world, if Matthew is not your cup of tea then is there really a need to criticise him?
He said Chappers was infuriating. What he didn’t say was Chappers was infuriating and that he could do a better job. So why you have suggested,
"it would be interesting to know exactly how you would keep viewers entertained for a few hours at a time"
is mystifying.
You also suggest that Matthew is criticing Chappers,
"for the sake of being critical"
. Is it not reasonable to suggest you are doing exactly the same to Matthew when you could have simply ignored him?
In your very first sentence Conundrum you yourself criticise Chapman (this may be your only criticism but it’s still criticism). Why are you pulling Matthew up for criticisng Chapman when you have done so yourself?
I like him a lot, at least he has personality unlike some on ATR/RUK who talk in a monotonous drone & if you’re a channel hopper you’d soon turn over or fall asleep listening to them but Matt would make you think twice.
He divides opinions a bit like Marmite but he romped homed in the RP survey so frankly the ayes have it.Yes, Matthew says what he feels. He is not rude, puts his hands up when he might be wrong. Talks some sense and some b*****s imo and that’s ok by me. He seems to have some time on his hands (or maybe simply makes time) and a passion for a sport. Bravo!
Also replies to every critisism, it seems. Isn’t that what we are are all here for? We also have a choice of what we read and an entitlement to an opinion.Crizzy
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.