Michael Weiss just made me mad on the NBC coverage of the Grand Prix final. When Hanyu popped his 4S into a 2S Weiss said, he will only get about a point for that instead of about 10 points. Is the audience so dumb that they would not understand if he said that Hanyu will get only 1.3 points instead of 10.5?
Originally Posted by gkelly
Also, these guys are commenting to tape after already having seen the competition, right? So Michael should have been prepared to discuss why Chan didn't get credit for the 2A+2T, without fumbling around with an explanation which, if you didn't already know the answer, was not of much use to the viewer.
Likewise Scott Hamilton could serve the viewers better if he would not simply exclaim, "oh that's so hard" every few seconds. Why can't he explain, at least in the replays, exactly what the skater is doing that makes it hard, naming and describing the moves? It is not much help when he continually says, "in this new judging system every little thing the skater does counts!" Why not show us some of those things that count for so much in the IJS. Why not say, "This turn with change of direction leading into this jump is called a Mohawk. This ups the difficulty of the jump and will be reflected by an extra point in the grade of execution."
As for those viewers who don't want their pretty little heads worried, such expert commentary would do no harm. They would just go on enjoying the jumps and the pretty skating as before.
OK, one more question, if I may.
In the instructional tape for Transitions, in the program of the skater who didn't have many, at one point the narrator says, "crossunder, followed by crossover, followed by cross-cut." I always thought that "cross-cut" was just the Canadian way of saying crossover. (It's cool when the British commentators call a triple Rittberger/triple cherry flip combo.)