fix
07-30-08, 08:43 PM
I think this is the most awesome, least snarky thread we've ever had. Two pages and no personal attacks? Way to go, guys! Seriously, it's actually nice to see everyone helping a new person.
Tour de France - Leaving the Tour for Olympics
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.maalea
07-30-08, 10:06 PM
One other thing, Cavendish finished the Giro. For a sprinter to complete the double and ride the olympics would be unheard of.
RiverHills
07-31-08, 08:40 AM
1) Did you actually watch the race? As for your "ticker" it was there. There was a constantly running graphic showing the lead the break had on the peleton, and showing where the leaders in the KOM, Green points, and Yellow jersey was (that's what those little jersey icons were on the bottom of your screen.
Yes, and I addressed the ticker in a previous comment.
2) VS is a cable channel broadcasting to an audience that presumably has some interest in, and knowledge of bike racing. While they do a lot to try to explain things, the level of simplicity you're asking for would be mind numbingly boring to most of the audience.
Taking your football analogy, ESPN assumes its viewers have more football knowledge and the broadcast is at a higher level, than it is on network TV, particulary for games with a mass audience, such as the Superbowl.
I appreciate the point you are trying to make, but I need to point out a flaw in your logic. You're agreeing that like VS did with the TdF, ESPN assumes that it's viewers have more than an elementary understanding of the sport. But ESPN (or ABC/NBC/CBS) commentators still explain basic concepts. When someone is called for encroachment, the announcer is going to explain that penalty everytime- even though most of the viewers, by virtue of watching football every week, probably know what that means. I understand that there is a balance that must be struck between keeping the interest of the aficionados and appealing to beginners. But come on, for a race that is on one once a year, there's certain to be plenty of people watching who aren't expert spectators.
3) The TDF is a multi layered onion, with numerous levels going on at once. You're not going to fully understand it jsut bywatching once. Keep watching and you'll learn more and find more levels to appreciate it on.
4) from your comments, you apparently did not even understand that the race is won on total elapsed time. I'm sorry but if you know that little you're not in a postion to criticize the coverage. It would be like me going to watch Soccer coverage of the Euro Cup in Europe and complain that they didn't explain how off sides or yellow cards work.
I did learn this year that the race is very multi-faceted. Prior to watching it this year, I thought it was simply a matter of a group of cyclists racing individually for the win on the last day. I never implied in any of my comments that I didn't realize the rider with the lowest overall time won. In fact, that is the first logical assumption anyone would have when considering a race that spans several stages. What I didn't understand, thanks to VS coverage, was that there days and times when breakaways would form, guys would fall way behind, or pick up lots of time. When you see a rider win 4 stages, its also logical to infer that he must be high in the overall contention if he keeps beating everyone else to the daily finish line.
I don't mean to discourage you from enjoying the Tour. Rather I would encourage you to watch and learn. I just think it's absurd to say the coverage sucked because they haven't dumbed it down to the level of Nascar on Fox.
As I've demonstrated, you've agreed that both the TdF and racing/football are presented to "educated" audiences, but yet you're implying that "dumbing down the coverage" is pertinent to racing/football but not the TdF. Given that football and racing are on TV every week for several months out of the year, and the TdF is a single event that takes place once a year during a much smaller time frame, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect a presentation weighted a little to the side of entry level viewership.
Yes, and I addressed the ticker in a previous comment.
2) VS is a cable channel broadcasting to an audience that presumably has some interest in, and knowledge of bike racing. While they do a lot to try to explain things, the level of simplicity you're asking for would be mind numbingly boring to most of the audience.
Taking your football analogy, ESPN assumes its viewers have more football knowledge and the broadcast is at a higher level, than it is on network TV, particulary for games with a mass audience, such as the Superbowl.
I appreciate the point you are trying to make, but I need to point out a flaw in your logic. You're agreeing that like VS did with the TdF, ESPN assumes that it's viewers have more than an elementary understanding of the sport. But ESPN (or ABC/NBC/CBS) commentators still explain basic concepts. When someone is called for encroachment, the announcer is going to explain that penalty everytime- even though most of the viewers, by virtue of watching football every week, probably know what that means. I understand that there is a balance that must be struck between keeping the interest of the aficionados and appealing to beginners. But come on, for a race that is on one once a year, there's certain to be plenty of people watching who aren't expert spectators.
3) The TDF is a multi layered onion, with numerous levels going on at once. You're not going to fully understand it jsut bywatching once. Keep watching and you'll learn more and find more levels to appreciate it on.
4) from your comments, you apparently did not even understand that the race is won on total elapsed time. I'm sorry but if you know that little you're not in a postion to criticize the coverage. It would be like me going to watch Soccer coverage of the Euro Cup in Europe and complain that they didn't explain how off sides or yellow cards work.
I did learn this year that the race is very multi-faceted. Prior to watching it this year, I thought it was simply a matter of a group of cyclists racing individually for the win on the last day. I never implied in any of my comments that I didn't realize the rider with the lowest overall time won. In fact, that is the first logical assumption anyone would have when considering a race that spans several stages. What I didn't understand, thanks to VS coverage, was that there days and times when breakaways would form, guys would fall way behind, or pick up lots of time. When you see a rider win 4 stages, its also logical to infer that he must be high in the overall contention if he keeps beating everyone else to the daily finish line.
I don't mean to discourage you from enjoying the Tour. Rather I would encourage you to watch and learn. I just think it's absurd to say the coverage sucked because they haven't dumbed it down to the level of Nascar on Fox.
As I've demonstrated, you've agreed that both the TdF and racing/football are presented to "educated" audiences, but yet you're implying that "dumbing down the coverage" is pertinent to racing/football but not the TdF. Given that football and racing are on TV every week for several months out of the year, and the TdF is a single event that takes place once a year during a much smaller time frame, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect a presentation weighted a little to the side of entry level viewership.
chipcom
07-31-08, 09:12 AM
I appreciate the point you are trying to make, but I need to point out a flaw in your logic. You're agreeing that like VS did with the TdF, ESPN assumes that it's viewers have more than an elementary understanding of the sport. But ESPN (or ABC/NBC/CBS) commentators still explain basic concepts. When someone is called for encroachment, the announcer is going to explain that penalty everytime- even though most of the viewers, by virtue of watching football every week, probably know what that means. I understand that there is a balance that must be struck between keeping the interest of the aficionados and appealing to beginners. But come on, for a race that is on one once a year, there's certain to be plenty of people watching who aren't expert spectators.
Incorrect. Indeed, I can't recall ever hearing a network announcer actually explaining the details of an encroachment and the applicable rules, unless it's concerning some technicality of a play currently under review by the refs.
I never hear Madden, for example, say "There's a penalty flag, off side by the defense. To be off side, a player has to cross the neutral zone (hey let's explain neutral zone too) and not be able to get back before the ball is snapped...but of course if he makes contact with an opposing player, whether he gets back or not is a moot point, that is unless he is drawn off by the opposing player (hey lets explain that an offensive lineman can't move once set)...or maybe the center was messing with the ball, or maybe the quarterback made motions indicating the ball was snapped, even though it wasn't. Frankly folks, this is a bit more complicated than I can explain before the next play is run or we go to commercial, so let's leave at the fact that big ole number 77 jumped off side and the defense has received a 5 yard penalty (hey, let's explain what a yard is). If you'd like more information concerning the technical nuances of the applicable rules, please visit our web site or consult a rule book, and don't forget to visit your nearest Ace Hardware. "
I think when covering a sporting event, the announcers have to assume the viewer has at least a basic knowledge of the event being covered. Sure, they can have fluff pieces that go into beginner details at times, if time permits, but the frequency of such things for beginners needs to be tempered by the fact that knowledgeable viewers want to see the meat of the event, not fluff. ;)
Incorrect. Indeed, I can't recall ever hearing a network announcer actually explaining the details of an encroachment and the applicable rules, unless it's concerning some technicality of a play currently under review by the refs.
I never hear Madden, for example, say "There's a penalty flag, off side by the defense. To be off side, a player has to cross the neutral zone (hey let's explain neutral zone too) and not be able to get back before the ball is snapped...but of course if he makes contact with an opposing player, whether he gets back or not is a moot point, that is unless he is drawn off by the opposing player (hey lets explain that an offensive lineman can't move once set)...or maybe the center was messing with the ball, or maybe the quarterback made motions indicating the ball was snapped, even though it wasn't. Frankly folks, this is a bit more complicated than I can explain before the next play is run or we go to commercial, so let's leave at the fact that big ole number 77 jumped off side and the defense has received a 5 yard penalty (hey, let's explain what a yard is). If you'd like more information concerning the technical nuances of the applicable rules, please visit our web site or consult a rule book, and don't forget to visit your nearest Ace Hardware. "
I think when covering a sporting event, the announcers have to assume the viewer has at least a basic knowledge of the event being covered. Sure, they can have fluff pieces that go into beginner details at times, if time permits, but the frequency of such things for beginners needs to be tempered by the fact that knowledgeable viewers want to see the meat of the event, not fluff. ;)
I saw Elvis
07-31-08, 01:45 PM
Here's what I don't understand about Cavendish leaving the Tour for the Olympics:
1) Wouldn't he have known before the Tour started that there would be a scheduling conflict? Why start the Tour if you know you won't be able to finish?
2) Every rider in the Tour is obviously a world-class athlete. So why weren't there more riders in the Tour also participating in the Olympics?
3) The Olympics and the Tour are both world-wide events. Why would there even be a scheduling conflict in the first place?
Hi
1) - There isn't a scheduling conflict, it was Cavs personal choice. The GB national squad had always expected Cav to ride the whole tour, the some post tour crits and then meet up in Beijing. Cav had always said he would play it day by day and he did this in consultation with his coach Rod Ellingworth.
2) - True, they are all world class athletes (and some are world class fools), but the olympics course may not suit every rider, and the Olympics is on national selection no trade team selection, so someone's bound to miss out.
3) - See 1 - also the squad had the bonus of Cav getting a weeks rest under his belt and a little extra time on the track, where he's been trying out the pursuit. :):):):):):):):)
1) Wouldn't he have known before the Tour started that there would be a scheduling conflict? Why start the Tour if you know you won't be able to finish?
2) Every rider in the Tour is obviously a world-class athlete. So why weren't there more riders in the Tour also participating in the Olympics?
3) The Olympics and the Tour are both world-wide events. Why would there even be a scheduling conflict in the first place?
Hi
1) - There isn't a scheduling conflict, it was Cavs personal choice. The GB national squad had always expected Cav to ride the whole tour, the some post tour crits and then meet up in Beijing. Cav had always said he would play it day by day and he did this in consultation with his coach Rod Ellingworth.
2) - True, they are all world class athletes (and some are world class fools), but the olympics course may not suit every rider, and the Olympics is on national selection no trade team selection, so someone's bound to miss out.
3) - See 1 - also the squad had the bonus of Cav getting a weeks rest under his belt and a little extra time on the track, where he's been trying out the pursuit. :):):):):):):):)