I don't mind watching skating on Ice Network, but I do miss commentary. (And I'm one of the people who used to complain about it!)
I think it's one of the elements of of broadcast that helps to build the sport. Fans need to be educated. Imagine trying to watch football or hockey with no play-by-play. You might enjoy the game on a surface level-- the excitement of touchdown or goals scored, but you'd miss out on understanding what makes the game difficult, why there are penalties, and why some players are exceptional. You need someone to explain all the drama that's going on.
I think the ball got dropped when the scoring system changed. There were some attempts to explain the new system, but I don't think they found a way to really connect with the casual fans. I think the most effective explanation was when Susie Wynne(?) stood next to a TV screen that showed potential points that a skater could earn based on the planned elements.
I think that there was a perception that it would be too confusing for fans to understand all the rules. But that is part of what makes a sport interesting and can create controversy that gets people talking. I think the tie between Evan and Jonny would have gotten more attention if more of an effort had been made to get the fan base educated about the scoring system over the past few years. It seemed like only hardcore fans understood what all the fuss was about.
It seems like whenever people think of figure skating commentators, they always mention our beloved Mr. Button. He had the gift of being able to share his enthusiasm with the audience while educating them. He's the reason I love figure skating today. If he was excited, he shared that. If he thought an element was performed well, he told you why. If he felt a performance was poor, he could pinpoint why he felt that way. It didn't mean he was absolutely right, but he shared his opinion passionately and then you could agree or disagree with him.
I felt Nancy Kerrigan was a poor choice for commmentary. She has an odd way of speaking that sounds negative and hesitant. She can't think and talk at the same time. She pauses to think about what she's saying halfway through her sentence and by the time she finishes her thought, it's too late.
I prefer Susie Wynne's commentary to Peggy Flemming's. It seems more balanced- good and bad elements are noticed by her.
I think my ideal commentator would be a former judge or technical specialist that has a personality. Someone who could accurately call elements as they happen without thinking "What jump was that? Double or triple?" Someone who could explain underrotation or wrong edge takeoff to the average Joe or Josephine. Someone who could call a spin as it's happening-- back or forward, position names, changes of edge, etc. But even more importantly, that person needs to have an enthusiastic (not necessarily always positive) attitude. The ability to get fans excited about what they are seeing.
I think it's one of the elements of of broadcast that helps to build the sport. Fans need to be educated. Imagine trying to watch football or hockey with no play-by-play. You might enjoy the game on a surface level-- the excitement of touchdown or goals scored, but you'd miss out on understanding what makes the game difficult, why there are penalties, and why some players are exceptional. You need someone to explain all the drama that's going on.
I think the ball got dropped when the scoring system changed. There were some attempts to explain the new system, but I don't think they found a way to really connect with the casual fans. I think the most effective explanation was when Susie Wynne(?) stood next to a TV screen that showed potential points that a skater could earn based on the planned elements.
I think that there was a perception that it would be too confusing for fans to understand all the rules. But that is part of what makes a sport interesting and can create controversy that gets people talking. I think the tie between Evan and Jonny would have gotten more attention if more of an effort had been made to get the fan base educated about the scoring system over the past few years. It seemed like only hardcore fans understood what all the fuss was about.
It seems like whenever people think of figure skating commentators, they always mention our beloved Mr. Button. He had the gift of being able to share his enthusiasm with the audience while educating them. He's the reason I love figure skating today. If he was excited, he shared that. If he thought an element was performed well, he told you why. If he felt a performance was poor, he could pinpoint why he felt that way. It didn't mean he was absolutely right, but he shared his opinion passionately and then you could agree or disagree with him.
I felt Nancy Kerrigan was a poor choice for commmentary. She has an odd way of speaking that sounds negative and hesitant. She can't think and talk at the same time. She pauses to think about what she's saying halfway through her sentence and by the time she finishes her thought, it's too late.
I prefer Susie Wynne's commentary to Peggy Flemming's. It seems more balanced- good and bad elements are noticed by her.
I think my ideal commentator would be a former judge or technical specialist that has a personality. Someone who could accurately call elements as they happen without thinking "What jump was that? Double or triple?" Someone who could explain underrotation or wrong edge takeoff to the average Joe or Josephine. Someone who could call a spin as it's happening-- back or forward, position names, changes of edge, etc. But even more importantly, that person needs to have an enthusiastic (not necessarily always positive) attitude. The ability to get fans excited about what they are seeing.
