Rawson

Besides the fact that he thinks Nate Brannen is Chris Lukezic, I think one thing that bothers my about Larry's style of track commentating is his "dumbing-down" of track to the nonrunners. He often says things like, "For the average Joe, go down to your local track and try to run one lap in 57 seconds. That's the speed Alan Webb runs for a mile." You know what Larry, very few people watch the meet who don't respect the speed of runners they see running in professional races.

Anyone who really doesn't appreciate the speed of elite runners on tv is probably not watching the sport or they will turn it off quickly. Yeah, I understand he's trying to get people who are non-runners to relate to the elite performances they see on the television, but I'd rather he just talk about athlete's rankings in the USA or compare them to the Olympic Medalists. When you hear that Alan Webb has the fastest time in the world or that he holds that American Record for the mile, you understand how good he is.

What matters in sports commentating may be up to debate, but to me it's about knowing the athletes names, their performances in the past, recent trends in performance, how they tactically match-up to other athletes, strategies to be employed or strategies being use; and personal stories about how people have made it to the top (and sometimes more importantly stayed there). Just an opinion!

Unfortunately the people who commentate don't know enough about athletes like that...

My 14 year old son has never competed in track...sticking to tackle football and basketball to this point in youth sports and middle school. He's expressed an interest in pole vaulting once he gets to HS. He is much more interested in Dwight's more thorough explanation of the field events than he is the running events.

The "dumbing down" of the broadcasts does nothing for the non track participant. I've never swung a golf club in my life but I can listen to guys like Johnny Miller explain the game any day.

Yeah. I mean I can't imagine too many non runners would listen to Rawson's comment and immediately head down to their local track and try to run a 57. I mean, I could see how a non runner would be fine with the guy just because they don't know any better. All I know is, I literally have to put the tv on mute and crank up some music while I watch.

Random Shmo wrote:

Yeah. I mean I can't imagine too many non runners would listen to Rawson's comment and immediately head down to their local track and try to run a 57. I mean, I could see how a non runner would be fine with the guy just because they don't know any better. All I know is, I literally have to put the tv on mute and crank up some music while I watch.

True.

I don't mind Rawson simply because I know he's there to make sure things are kept simple. I rely on what I know to enjoy what I'm seeing. People should keep in mind Rawson is told to keep things simple, and to present them in the fashion he does. He knows the score, he really does.

Even President Obama thinks this guy sucks:

http://twoangryrunners.com/?p=733

He has to go, does Larry Rawson. Either that, or he has to change his syntax, does Larry.

In the women's 1500 yesterday at the Adidas meet, he managed to say that there were 600 meters to go when it was half a lap to go. He corrected himself, but "huh?"

My favorite Rawsonism of the evening was when he was commenting on a sprint event and he said the runners get "rigor mortis" as they approach the finish line.

What's tragic about Rawson is that I think he actually knows a lot. He sometimes comes out with a piece of historical information of analysis of a current performance that is informative and makes sense. But it's very rare.

I wish we could have Steve Cram calling the American coverage.

They managed to miss just about every major storyline of the meet. They just barely got Jenn S going for the american record in the PV and Shalane in the 5k. But otherwise the only story they tried to tell was that this year there is the world championships and everyone wants to qualify. I bet ESPN will be broadcasting the WCs later this year.

I like listening to him. I met him years ago at Utica Boilermaker and he was a great guy. I wish him luck in his battle with cancer.

Is he the one who will always use a sentence structure like "he missed the A qualifying time by .26 seconds, did Bernard Lagat" or "he has one of the best starts in the world, does Walter Dix"?

I agree about not dumbing it down too, the pole vault commentary was fairly advanced as far as analyzing the technical aspects of Jen's attempts and I enjoyed it despite having no connection to pole vault. There's no reason the track commentary can't be the same way.

They need to fire whoever makes up the graphics (ie, the start lists, results, etc. that they show.) These were riddled with mistakes. Misspellings, wrong nationalities, etc. They claimed that both Nate Brannen and Felix Sanchez were American, for one.

I have never posted on any letsrun forum. But I have to applaud this post, because the truth in it made me laugh.

During yesterday's broadcast, Lewis Johnson referred to the women's "1500 meter dash." Observations like that, or the Brannen/Lukezic gaffe got me thinking, once again, why can't track in this country have solid articulate announcers like other sports? Living near Detroit, I've been watching the Red Wings in Stanley Cup playoff action. While watching those games, I am continually in awe of how the announcers call contests that are absolute whirlwinds of players, numbers, and all kinds of variables. And the guys call the action--in real time--while seldom stumbling verbally, seemingly making the right call most of the time. The same goes for NBA coverage, where the pace is nearly as frenetic, and variability is still the watchword and the challenge. Ditto for the NFL, NASCAR, and even pool and poker for heaven's sake.

In track events, the variability thing is nearly non-existent. The same group of athletes that toe the line at the start, are going to be (barring drop outs), the same group of athletes who cross it at the finish. For the most part, the action unfolds in a clear, linear way, at less than lighting speed. Is telling the audience what happens in between the start and the finish, in a clear, concise, and compelling fashion really that hard for our professional track and field announcers? Even when all the people in the race are running in the same direction for the entire race? Especially, when the people doing the broadcast are doing it for the fifth or tenth or fifteenth season in a row?

Wouldn't you think they'd have polished their performance techniques by now? Wouldn't you think they'd learned to do their homework before a meet, knowing who was in each race they'd be calling--and maybe memorizing some choice statistical and historical bits, by now? Wouldn't you think they'd learn how to speak properly (as pointed out in other posts in this thread) by now? Well, the answer to all of these questions is 'apparently not.' The best I can say about yesterday's announcing job is, 'at least Carol Lewis wasn't there.'

Although I think the notion of Steve Cram or Steve Ovett or Dave Moorcroft or Don Wittman or Geoff Gowan...doing coverage for American networks sounds great, there ought to be no reason to bring in talent from Canada or the U.K. or anywhere else. We all know articulate, knowledgeable experts who would be great faces for our sports. I've met some of them here in Ann Arbor, people like Ron Warhurst, Bob Kennedy, and Kevin Sullivan. (I even met 'Nate Lukezic' here once. :-) ) Whether or not these folks could, or would want to translate their talents to on-air meet coverage, who knows. But we have tons of people like them in our sport. Dan O'Brien is someone I've seen on television who I thought shows real potential.

Until professional track meets in this country start filling those empty seats we all saw yesterday, perhaps there won't be pressure to hire or develop announcers who are on par with those in other sports. But, we can hope. Maybe Ernie Harwell has a grandchild who's into track? I'll check into it...

What ever happened to Frank Shorter as an announcer? He certainly has been around the track a few times, well-spoken, has half a brain.

He probably pissed off some network types?

i think track and field coverage has gotten a *little* better in the last decade or so. at least they show a decent portion of the distance races now. i remember back in the late 80's/early 90's, they would show the last 8 meters of anything longer than the 1500, and dwight stones would spend literally half the show talking to or fawning over jackie joyner-kersee, whether she was competing or not. even after she retired, i think he still spent a good 15 minutes on her. horrible. horrible. he's kind of a prat.

Shorter was no great shakes as an announcer. That's why he isn't working that gig.

Haha wrote:

I have never posted on any letsrun forum. But I have to applaud this post, because the truth in it made me laugh.

I feel deeply honored. (Is that you, Larry?)