- This topic has 53 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote: from robnorth on 1:47 pm on Feb. 13, 2007[br]I like Iain Mackenzie’s commentaries <br>
<br>Me too, as several on this Forum will be well aware. Always enjoy his withering humour at points and small jumps meetings.
gc<br>
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
Jim McGrath revolutionised calling style over here but sadly has gone down hill. The C4 cartel of Goode, Thompson, Cattermole and Holt get far too many meetings IMO – Goode and Thompson are simply appaling and how Cattermole has nurdled his way into getting the Aintree, Cheltenham and York gigs amazes me – he simply isn’t up to the job. Next time he is calling shut your eyes and listen to the cack handed mess he makes of it.
Holt is fair at the job but can’t resist giving his opinions of what might be about to happen rather than sticking to reality.
At least nobody can accuse me of voting for myself! But this is a very informative and helpful thread, because everyone, whatever their job, can improve their performance by listening to others.<br>For example, Wallace says in his post:
What I want from a commentator is an accurate call of the leaders with mentions of how well the fancied runners are travelling
Apart from the obvious requirement of identifying the runners as accurately as possible, are there any specific things (like frequent mentions of how well those near the top of the betting are going) that you listen for – things which perhaps are not always covered as well as they might be?<br>Or, when horses are tailed off, say three from home, should we check to see if they are pulled up, or just concentrate on the leaders? I realise that it is important for you to know if a horse is out of the race if you are betting in running.<br>Any suggestions you make will be taken on board, and I will do my very best to absorb any good ideas you have next time I am at the mic!
Lee McKenzie
Personally I like to hear what’s going on at the back of the field as well as the front, so I prefer those commentators who do keep you informed as to who’s pulled up, who’s fallen three out, who’s not jumping well etc. The more information the better for me; I’m not a fan of Des Scahill’s minimalist style, although obviously it’s a personal thing. <br>The accuracy of the pronunciation is another important factor IMHO. <br>And it would be nice to be always kept informed as to how fallen horses are, and whether they’ve recovered or not. That’s not always done.
Richard Hoiles got my vote for his clarity of diction, accuracy and the way he rarely misses anything going on. <br>
Lee thanks for your post. Concentrating on the horses in serious contention is the priority in the later stages of the races. I find running through all the runners in the race is of little value although it probably helps the caller in memorising the colours/identifying the horses. I don’t think you need to worry about the “smartâ€ÂÂ
A good attitude to have Leemac, you should have voted for yourself like some of the others.<br>Accuracy is the most important thing to me and identifying all fallers and pulled ups as soon as possible, quite often they are not visible on the pictures we receive.<br>Don’t like constant references to fav backers, eg fav backers on good terms or fav backers can go collect, most people haven’t backed the fav unless it’s well odds on.
In football they say a referee is at his best when people don’t remember the game he has had (or she, unless you think I’m Mike Newell). It’s not quite the same in racing as the emotion that a commentator shows can often enhance a race, but that can be taken too far.
Richard Hoiles is my favourite as he is very accurate, not self-absorbed or cliche ridden.
Simon Holt is good, but seems to think HE is the race. Most people in the UK do not want American commentaries so don’t do impersonations Simon!
Talking of which we move on to MR SHOUTY. SHOUTY SHOUT SHOUT. ROSE HILL. LENGTH AND A TAIL. SHOUT SHOUT SHOUT. Very accurate is Mr Johnson but only stupendous efforts from the worst 2 move him off the bottom.
First, Thommo. Commentating by numbers to me. Indeed I remember a race at Lingfield a few years back when it became clear he literally did use the number cloths. He was confused by the colours of the winner. Why did it make life difficult for him? Because the second number on the number cloth had turned back on itself so he thought it was number 1 rather than 14 (or something). He was virtually silent for the final furlong, which I suppose was a positive!
Finally, the worst, most odious, self-important, dressed like an ice-cream man, incompetent commentator of them all. No name. Just a name and a pun. "Sturm Und Drang". "I Swear it’s Oath".
(and this is without even thinking of Aussie Jim who seems completely incapable of calling ANY race correctly any more).
Don’t forget Jerry Hannon from the Irish side of things
By the way – I’ve voted for Lee McKenzie for being good enough to come on here and take on board the views of the forum. Well done.
(Edited by Michael Walsh at 10:40 pm on Feb. 13, 2007)
Good to have Leemac on board.
When you left radio 5 to start course commentating again I thought you were struggling a bit. I remember being at Haydock one day when you appeared rather hesitant. You now seem back to full confidence to my ears and am always happy to have you as the caller – and I’m real choosy!
There is only one MR SHOUTY;
Rose Hill<br>the Ledger start<br>around the outside<br>nibble of the ….turf<br>a length and a tail<br>over the mound<br>they’re in the gate<br>much the best<br>the clubhouse turn<br>from gate to wire<br>a stacking packing field<br>caught them in a good line<br>one last lunge
Sorry I could go on but its late.
<br>I’ve never heard him on a racecourse but I have always thought that Lee Mac is really underrated. I heard his commentary on Best Mate’s second Gold Cup after the event and thought it was excellent.
Agree with everything that has been said about ‘Aussie Jim.’ The successor to O’Sullevan was always going to be on a hiding to nothing but he’s just far too casual and very inaccurate these days. It’s also very annoying when he announces that the leader has kicked clear when in fact it is only half a length.
Of the higher profile commentators, Simon Holt & Tony O’Hehir would be the two for me.
There are one or two commentators who irritate me but that is down to personal taste. Most of them do a decent job. The very good ones help you to see things in a race you might not spot for yourself.
I thought Ian Bartletts accuracy during the heavy fog at Wolves recently was top notch.
The small but important infomation Hoiles includes particularly pace puts him ahead of the bunch but in fairness the overall quality of most of them is very good imo.
Aussie Jim has really disapointed after such a great start, I’d blame laziness more than lack of practice for his customary inaccurate commentary and analysis.
They are/were all good race callers otherwise they wouldn’t be in the job for long. Their own particular styles are not going to be everyone’s taste but hey, as long as they are accurate (this really is crucial) then its fine by me.
Lee Mac – many people have been criticising commentators for using their own phrases, cliches, etc. How much of this is a bit of fun for the commentator, say when calling a 16f handicap on the AW in the middle of December?
I’d need to amuse myself somehow having to call that dross, especially at Kempton… if a racecourse commentator is calling a race but no-one’s there to hear it does he/she make a sound?
In fact this is my commentary on said race.
‘They’re off….
…the first time Sir Mark Prescott handicapper ‘Needs Further’ wins under a patient Seb Sanders ride, number 7 ‘Belgian Breakfast’ is second, the third horse home will finish long after I’ve left for the evening so I suggest you check tomorrow’s Post.
Good night.’
:cool:
- Total Posts 17716
I think that most of those in the poll do a pretty good job, though Stewart Machin stands out as one you could listen to with your eyes closed, and still understand what was happening in the race.
You’re all so lucky, we are stuck with a general bunch of garbage over here.
A couple are OK, but if you want to hear how not to do it, listen to the guy who calls the standardbreds at Fraser Downs. He needs shooting, big gun, little gun, makes no difference.
With the exception of a couple and that has been well documented, the commentary presenters, doing a job that many of us couldn’t do, make an excellent job of it.
<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.