- This topic has 29 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi People!
Couple of questions for you about your likes and dislikes in a commentator.
1. During the race call do you prefer the commentator just to stick to calling the names of the horses, their position, margins and so on or do you prefer the commentator to mention the name of the jockey or the trainer as the race goes on? For example: "And then comes DDD from the in-form stable of Joe Bloggs" "Then HHH with A. Rider onboard" and does it really matter to you to know if so and so is going for a double, or a hatrick unless it is of great historical significance?
2. Do you like the commentators to identify the horses for you? For example: "Then comes XXX in the yellow jacket, followed by the red jacket of YYY." Trade Secret: This is often done by commentators who have not fully learned the colors to buy a little more time!
Cheers,
Craig.
Hi Craig,
I don’t mind how a commentator describes the first 2/3 of the race. He (or she – but are there any??) can give them all a namecheck, mention colours, jockeys, distinguishing headgear and everything else you mentioned. Everyone has their own way.
In the longer races, I think it’s good for the commentator to mention a few little factlets. Whether the horse is an habitual front-runner, first time headgear, up in the weights today etc. That all helps to make the commentary into more of a narration. I find Simon Holt particularly good at this.
There are only a couple of things that really get on my nerves.
1. Listing the exact position each horse is in.
Mark Johnson does this a lot. “…Trigger is in 11th, Horsey is in 12th, Next Horse is 13th…” So annoying!
2. By all means mention the ‘in form jockey’, the colours and all that but only do it once for each horse – preferably on the first spin through the order. I suppose that is more of a problem for the commentators on the longer jump races over here though.
Hi People!
Couple of questions for you about your likes and dislikes in a commentator.
1. During the race call do you prefer the commentator just to stick to calling the names of the horses, their position, margins and so on or do you prefer the commentator to mention the name of the jockey or the trainer as the race goes on? For example: "And then comes DDD from the in-form stable of Joe Bloggs" "Then HHH with A. Rider onboard" and does it really matter to you to know if so and so is going for a double, or a hatrick unless it is of great historical significance?
2. Do you like the commentators to identify the horses for you? For example: "Then comes XXX in the yellow jacket, followed by the red jacket of YYY." Trade Secret: This is often done by commentators who have not fully learned the colors to buy a little more time!
Cheers,
Craig.
1. I like the commentator to mention names, trainers and any facts, etc. For one thing, it makes the commentator seem interested in the race (which is, like some evidence of enthuisiasm, important). Also it’s padding – so it doesn’t sound like an automation voicing a list of names and numbers.
2. Yes. This is just useful! Likewise it’s good to hear things like whether a horse is ‘an habitual front-runner’ to parrot The Young Fella, as it adds to the in-running narration. Indeed Holt is my favourite commentator – I also like the way that in the big races, he tries to finish with a triumphent ‘they think it’s all over…’ line. There was a thread dedicated to them on Betfair. It gives the race a sense of ocassion though obviously it would seem a tad melodramatic at the end of a Southwell seller.
Hello Marble!
You bring up a very important point about young blood. Without trying to sound like a namedropper, Graham Goode said something similar to me in an email a couple of weeks ago. The answer is of course in being able to use one’s vocabulary without becoming esoteric in the process. Definitely a fine line to be drawn.
Here in the USA, this year (my first as a racecaller) has been interesting as the only Brit racecaller in the business. I have had to adapt my style a little. Not wanting to sound American, but cut back a little on the color identification and other comments because the one thing that has been emphasised to me is CPF (calls per furlong.)
A good example of this was when Mark Johnson was over here at Churchill. He averaged 2.91 CPF. (meaning he mentioned an average of 2.91 horses pur furlong) Which was around my average at the start of the year. Right now my average is around 4.2 CPF. Not delivering my words any faster or with the OTT of many American announcers but just calling more horses with less narration. Strangely one of the things people have liked about my calls here is the fact I still narrate the race as well as call it, but I have had to strike a balance that will appeal to the racefans bearing in mind my accent.
I have not spoken to Aussie Jim in so many years, I do not know what is going on there, but he was undoubtedly a big influence on me and a very nice guy to me as a teenager.
Cheers!
Craig
Hi The Young Fella!
Your first point about saying so and so is 12th, XXX is 13th and so on, here in the USA is called "Ordinal Positioning" and many racecallers do it over here in the USA. Drives me a bit mad as well!
Simon is indeed an excellent commentator. LeeMac, if your reading this, give him my email, please mate!
Cheers,
Craig
Hi NWRA!
Yeah, I think stealing a line which will go down in history as one of the great British lines of the 20th century and using it in a racecall is not quite my style and of course would have no cultural significance in the USA!
Your point about facts is very interesting. The late Raleigh Gilbert was my hero as a racecaller when I was a young kid. I loved the fact he would add in info into his commentary and I mimiced that as a kid. Later, I discovered many people did not like that about his commentaries. I disagreed with them, though.
Craig
Accuracy is the most important factor in commentating to me, don’t have a problem with exact position of horses being pointed out, can be useful particularly in a big field and if one’s gone missing, you don’t have many big fields in the States. Not a problem with colours or accutrements being pointed out either occasionally, sometimes there can be late colour changes.
Can’t do with commentators frequently stating "They’re sorting
themselves out" or "As they settle down".
Iain McKenzie will often give you a potted history of trainer, jockey or horse on the run in which I’m not keen on.
Mike C will often say "Just looking for such and such a horse" Why bother saying that? Just say where the horse is. Similarly what’s the point in Tommo repeatedly saying "Lets see what happens"?Accuracy is king and the commentator should always concentrate on imparting the facts of what is unfolding in a matter-of-fact way. However, slight contradiction here, it is good when a commentator develops a style and within that style can add to the drama, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the flow of information.
Good quote from John Arlott (I think – some cricket guy anyhow) regarding the role of the commentator. The commentator should, according to Arlott, "talk to the blind man who once could see"
The commentator has a very difficult balance to strike – not only is he providing significant information for those with an interest in the race but he also has to make the race interesting for those on course who may not be regular racecgoers, so he has to make it interesting for them as well.
So which should he aim the commentary at, bearing in mind it is probably impossible to fully please both audiences?
The commentator has a very difficult balance to strike – not only is he providing significant information for those with an interest in the race but he also has to make the race interesting for those on course who may not be regular racecgoers, so he has to make it interesting for them as well.
So which should he aim the commentary at, bearing in mind it is probably impossible to fully please both audiences?
I don’t buy that Paul, would have thought the casual racegoer would be more interested in just the running of the race and how their fancy was going rather than "interesting" facts, it is my preference too.
I think it all depends as to what type of race you are calling.
If you have a 3m chase with 4-10 runners then the commentator will always mention something about the horses stable,jockey and any previous big race wins while the race is in progress.
In the big flat races with bigger fields this will very rarely happen.
I like commentators who make a race sound exciting, Derek Thompson for example will make a 0-65 Southwell handicap sound like a Group Race as be bigs up the finish where as GG will probably go through the motions without paying much interest.
Back in November at Fairyhouse Des Scahill just said "They go out of View" in most of the races when the fog was blocking the coverage and then said nothing at all until they came back into view.
On the other hand Simon Holt who many times at Exeter,Brighton and Goodwood when the fog has come down kept speaking to the crowd and even got some laughs out keeping the crowd entertained while he waited for the horses to come back.
It all personal choice, Martin Harris for example is one of the most accurate in the business but never gets to loud even in the most amazing of finishes where as others really go for it.
Best thing of any commentator is to be correct,accurate and sound like you know what you are talking about.
- Total Posts 438
Accuracy is king and the commentator should always concentrate on imparting the facts of what is unfolding in a matter-of-fact way.
Add a touch of personality and you’re spot-on.
Accuracy is the most important factor in commentating to me, don’t have a problem with exact position of horses being pointed out, can be useful particularly in a big field and if one’s gone missing, you don’t have many big fields in the States. Not a problem with colours or accutrements being pointed out either occasionally, sometimes there can be late colour changes.
Can’t do with commentators frequently stating "They’re sorting
themselves out" or "As they settle down".
Iain McKenzie will often give you a potted history of trainer, jockey or horse on the run in which I’m not keen on.
Mike C will often say "Just looking for such and such a horse" Why bother saying that? Just say where the horse is. Similarly what’s the point in Tommo repeatedly saying "Lets see what happens"?Yeats:
Saying those things is padding/filler for the commentator to work out whats happening!
Craig
I think it all depends as to what type of race you are calling.
If you have a 3m chase with 4-10 runners then the commentator will always mention something about the horses stable,jockey and any previous big race wins while the race is in progress.
In the big flat races with bigger fields this will very rarely happen.
I like commentators who make a race sound exciting, Derek Thompson for example will make a 0-65 Southwell handicap sound like a Group Race as be bigs up the finish where as GG will probably go through the motions without paying much interest.
Back in November at Fairyhouse Des Scahill just said "They go out of View" in most of the races when the fog was blocking the coverage and then said nothing at all until they came back into view.
On the other hand Simon Holt who many times at Exeter,Brighton and Goodwood when the fog has come down kept speaking to the crowd and even got some laughs out keeping the crowd entertained while he waited for the horses to come back.
It all personal choice, Martin Harris for example is one of the most accurate in the business but never gets to loud even in the most amazing of finishes where as others really go for it.
Best thing of any commentator is to be correct,accurate and sound like you know what you are talking about.
Neil!
I have had plenty of "fog calls" and always make sure I have plenty to say in such circumstances!
I am not one to make a low quality race sound like a Group One. I think context in the bigger picture is important but at the same time you have to be enthusiastic. I think its much easier to go OTT than to rein it in. But if u go too far in either direction, there are problems.
Craig
Simon Holt is my favourite of the current generation and he’ll say things like ‘Inglis Drever is off the bridle but we’ve seen him hit a flat spot before’ and it all adds to the drama IMO.
Lee McKenzie is one of the unsung ones that I like listening to but I think he gets a bit of criticism elsewhere so I’m not sure what the general opinion is.
Aussie Jim and Dessie Scahill are tired and just go through the motions for me, neither should be in the high profile positions they’re in.
- Total Posts 17716
For me, the best way to judge a commmentary is with your eyes closed.
If you still get an accurate feel of what is going on, then it’s usually a good commentator. Simon Holt is particularly adept at this, as is Richard Hoiles.
Many of ther others would leave you baffled, or bored to tears with their repititious drone of "It’s A from B with C 3rd and D 4th" etc.Couldn’t agree more regarding Dessie, Paul. His commentaries have deteriorated badly in recent years which is a pity because he was a good caller many moons ago.
Jerry Hannon should be getting more of a chance at the bigger meetings IMO. He was calling at Limerick today (should be there for the rest of the festival with Dessie at Leopardstown), and his commentaries are fantastic. He can make the worst of handicaps at Ballinrobe sound exciting whereas Dessie would have you nodding off watching the Derby or the Champion Hurdle.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.