Lee wrote;
>>No he's not. He's an expert. Whoever was interviewing him wanted an
>>expert opinion from someone who knows what it takes to get to the
>>top of the sprinting world. His credentials, in case you've
>>forgotten: 19.32, 43.18, and enough championship medals to armor a
>>tank.
Kebba replied:
>An expert on what? He know's nothing about the 100m dash?
I'm guessing that your punctuation is just a little misplaced here, and you
meant to state that Johnson knows nothing about the 100m, and not to ask.
He has run 10.09. So that would suggest that he knows at least a little
bit about the event.
> So what he has the WR?
Clearly, having the WR doesn't necessarily make him more expert than a
number of people who have never cracked 14 seconds in the 100 meters. But
it does give him claim to more expertise than the vast universe of schlubs
who have never put significant time or effort into what it takes to be the
best sprinter in the world.
>As anyone who has watched NFL football will tell you being a great player
has no bearing on being able to >commentate.
OK - while we're here, do you want to tell us what exactly you mean by
"being able to commentate"?
There are a lot of different facets to providing commentary during sporting
events.
There's the "game call" - the guy who needs to give voice to the action, so
that the viewer gets focussed on the more important events on the field
There's the "color guy" - who helps provide background on the more
important or interesting participants, to help hook the viewers ... and who
also just throws in "color" in the form of analysis, history, opinion, etc
There's the "on-field reporter" who puts the mike in front of athlete's
faces and asks the questions that hopefully will elicit interesting answers
... or who reports on information that might be available track-side that
isn't going to be immediately available to the guy in the booth.
A lot of athletes ARE crappy at the role they're signed up for. The game
call, for example, is a true art form - and the person with the call tends
to be the most experienced broadcast person in the team. It's not just
talent - it takes folks years to get good at making the call, which is why
the nurd who spent his college years with a mike in front of his face on
the sideline at his team's games is probably going to be better at it than
an athlete who spent years on the field.
Athletes are often picked to do the "on-field" or "sideline" reporting,
because it's assumed that they'll be better at getting a fellow athlete to
open up and say something interesting. OTOH, that's not a given, because
both timing and presentation are really important for "on-field" reporting,
and far too many ex-jocks come off as fumble-mouthed or pandering.
Back to the "color guy". You want someone who has experience in the sport,
who has a lot of knowledge, and who is willing to say things that might not
be self-evident. I think Johnson has a LOT of potential here, because he
obviously thinks about the sport a lot, and he's never been one who just
wanted everyone to love him, and therefore he's willing to say things that
people will talk about, rather than just nodding their heads over.
Once again - it's an opinion, based on Johnson's analysis. You can argue
with him about it, but it's pretty silly to call him an idiot, because you
have nothing more than your own opinion to stand on. You'll have to give
me examples of him saying things that the vast majority of well-informed
track fans would disagree with (hmm - what T&F commentator fits THAT
description?) before anyone has reason to agree with you.
Phil
