I think the coverage was better. The coverage was much more focused on the pure competition and less on athlete interviews - which most of the time are about as interesting as watching corn grow here in the Midwest - and less of the hype, drama, or soap opera TV seems to think they have to add to make a track meet interesting. I think TV is finally realizing that if people can listen to a baseball game on the radio for three hours, track fans can watch an occasional one-hour TV broadcast of just competition.
Bob K did well in his commentary. I think Dwight Stones' overall knowledge and expertise of the sport is still being underutilized. I like MJ, but it seems he is trying too hard to look for the controversy and then has to dig himself out of a hole. He made a comment right after Marion finished her 100 about her not going to be happy with her performance. But a little bit later, he said she would be happy. To me, it seemed like Michael's second observation was a contraction that was dubbed in latter from a sound truck. Lee Nichols wrote: > I agree. I'm an old distance runner too, but since my competitive > days ended and my spectator days began, I have become a huge fan of > the vertical jumps. Given that they have DWIGHT STONES, of all > people, doing field events, you have to wonder why they don't give > better field coverage. I can't think of anything more dramatic than a > close high-jump competition, but when all you have is Dwight saying > "And here is the winning jump" and nothing else, where is the drama? > Imagine if, instead of showing the whole 100 meters field, they only > shot Mo Greene in his lane and you couldn't see the rest of the field! > > Lee > > > Am I alone in thinking that the coverage was much better than > >usual (i.e.not just sprints and the mile, for a change) and that it > >nevertheless was much too skimpy on the field events. And this > >comment is coming from a retired marathoner and high school cross > >country coach. I love seeing any distance coverage - and this time > >there was a modest amount - but I also enjoy other events. To me the > >field events are much more interesting than the 100 and 200. Dwight > >Stones is a knowledgeable and opinionated commentator. Given the > >chance, he can help explain and engage the ordinary fan. But in a > >fantastic men's shot competition, just one throw by each of the top > >3 was shown. The very good high jump competiton was given even > >shorter shrift. Fans WILL become interested if coverage is good. > >Look at the attention paid to curling, for gosh sakes, in the Winter > >Games. And unlike the distances, Americans still are very > >competitive if not dominant in the field events, so there is no > >nationalistic excuse not to feature them. > > So... kudos to Larry R. and cohorts, but next time.... > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > -- > Lee Nichols > Assistant News Editor > The Austin Chronicle > 512/454-5766 ext. 138 > fax 512/458-6910 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
