Rawson at ESPN since 1980

Muted every distance race, unfathomable it's been that thirty years he's been doing this. Ya know dave, that's just under 10 years for the conversion to British across the pond.

Weighs as much as 1350 slices of bread, does Larry Rawson.

I have had the chance to meet Mr Rawson a number of times and even worked with him on one broadcast. He is a nicest person you would want to meet and always has time for people. As an announcer he is hardworking, does tons of research before each show and cares more about the sport than almost anyone.

Does he make a mistake here or there - yes but we are all human and in the heat of a live show I dare annoys you to do better.

Watching a track and field meet will not be the same without him commentating. Well done Mr. Rawson! Watching the recent NCAA's in Australia make me feel back home and brings me back to my years when watching any track and field meet on TV in the mid 80's was an experience. Same to be said with Dwight Stone. Who will ever replace them? On Eurosport we listen to Tim Hutchings who is another great commentator on this sport!

Big Man On Campus wrote:

Big As Hell Runner wrote:

He said so many dumb things during the races I watched tonight. Simple things like identifying the runners incorrectly to really dumb things like seeing the guys go through in 68 and calling it "4:50 pace".

It's non stop with him. Always has been.

Then why don't you submit a resume to ESPN and see if can get hired and replace Rawson. I'm sure ESPN is looking for some hot shots from LRC for consideration as commentators 😉.

Because I have no interest in doing that job you idiot. That doesn't change the fact that he is not good at it. And I agree that he's a very nice man and great to talk to. He's just not good at broadcasting.

Why don't they get Ryan Fenton on air?

Casca the Warrior wrote:

Not one LR poster could do a better job, that's what's so funny about all the complaints against Rawson. He has to appeal to the general public, not to a bunch of rarely to never been laid basement dwellers who pretend they have or had running ability or careers.

I agree with previous replies:

The general public doesn't watch T&F so I don't see the need to cater to them.

Plus, when watching other sports that I don't know as much about, I don't like dumbed down broadcasts. If I watch for a while I'll pick up most of the basics anyway. Then, I want a play by play person who is descriptive and accurate (and maybe slips in some jokes) and a commentator that will discuss nuances that I can't see on my own (line play or CB technique in football, offensive zone rotation in hockey, defensive rotation in basketball, etc...). I know there are lots of interesting details happening at elite level sports and I feel insulted and bored if the broadcasters only ever talk about basic things I could figure out on my own.

Also, someone can be nice and hardworking and be subpar at their job.

Finally, no I can't do it better, but I've watched enough track and enough sports in general (some of the speed skating guys are great) to be certain that there are people out there that can do better. Or Rawson himself could improve!

Casca the Warrior wrote:

Not one LR poster could do a better job, that's what's so funny about all the complaints against Rawson. He has to appeal to the general public, not to a bunch of rarely to never been laid basement dwellers who pretend they have or had running ability or careers.

Larry puts in a lot of work which is good but I'll say it again and again, you do not need to dumb down the sport. It drives me nuts. I think a viewer appreciates when the color guy clearly is really into the sport, is talking at a high level that is understandable and gets really excited.

Having done some meets for the Ivy League, I"llt tell you it's not all that easy. It takes a lot of research do it well if you dn't have a stat man.

The main problem with the broadcasts is they don't have a real play by play man. THey need to hire Bill Spaulding. Then it's easier to be a color person as you don't have to do too much. You just focus on analysis.

At NCAAs, people are falling in the 400 hurdles and we dont' even learn their names mid-race. THat would never hapepen with Bill Spaulding.

THis is a long way of saying I think Bill and I would be better. ;) YOf course, I'm not sure how much of that credit goes to me as I've listened to Bill do it with others and he makes everyone sound good. Since flotrack thinks I hate them (I just hate their prices and business practicees), you can listen to us on archive on flotrack from ivy champs.

I cannot stand it when Rawson talks.

He single-handedly ruins every track meet he announces.

Please. No more Rawson.

Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Maybe the fact that he's been there so long means that he has more pull with the brass and helps get better placement for track. But track should be building on younger talent like Ato Boldon in the sprints and developing some Americans who are both interesting and knowledgeable like Hutchings and Cram for the distances. The interesting part is important. Some of the Brojos' favorites are not interesting.

I would love Larry Rawson is person probably over a coffee and donuts ( not a cop) . But his constant stupid stories about running a local 800 at the high school etc have done little to promote the sport on the wide scale. In fact, its hurt the sport.

Best part of the night and on Wednesday was Stones and Larry pronouncing Ben Sareel's name differently sitting right next to each other, LOL.

BOTH nights!!

Larry is an extremely nice man, I used to criticize until I met him on train ride back from Penn, Great man,

And he's only a senior

Trialswatcher wrote:

Larry is an extremely nice man, I used to criticize until I met him on train ride back from Penn, Great man,

I've met Larry a number of times in chance meetings and he's always been great to talk to about the sport.

Aside from Carol Lewis (because her shrieking irritates me), I don't find any track and field broadcaster and better or worse than others at least to the point of complaining about it. I assume I know more about the sport than those broadcasting in terms of what is actually happening on the track.

I remember that one time when I was watching the Tour de France and Phil LIggett told me to take my ten speed out to the nearest flat road and ride at 30 mph for 3 minutes. It really made me, a casual watcher of cycling, want to watch the sport.

Except it didn't. Because he doesn't do that. Which is why he's a great announcer. Phil Liggett makes me want to watch cycling because he intelligently brings the sport alive from the perspective of the competitors themselves. He's not trying to appeal to someone who doesn't care by lowering the sport to their level. He's trying to bring their intelligence up to the level the sport deserves.

And that's why we deserve better in track and field. I'm absolutely sick of people who think differently. NO other sport abuses it's main audience the way track coverage does in the Unites States. The longtime producers have shaped the way track is covered, and sellouts like Stones just keep embarrassing themselves for a dollar. He knows better and wouldn't have put up with it when he was a competitor, but now he often tells critics "but you still watched, didn't you?"

Well, Dwight, that's because we had a choice between not seeing our sport or seeing it with you and Larry. All I gotta do is listen to Steve Ovett or someone from Europe announce and I see what the sport is missing.

Vondell Perriott wrote:

The only track announcer who is capable of telling me things I don't know about the sport.

I got to agree......(Take away Ovett & Hutching's accent & they don't sound any better to me). Rawson does his homework & it shows. Looking forward to the women tonight. And why the complaints about splitting NCAA Champs like this? Makes team scoring WAY easier to follow than going back & forth trying to juggle all the permutations when both Men & Women's scoring in involved at the same time.

Big As Hell Runner wrote:

Because I have no interest in doing that job you idiot. That doesn't change the fact that he is not good at it. And I agree that he's a very nice man and great to talk to. He's just not good at broadcasting.

Then why don't you mute his voice and quit complaining....you "idiot." 😉

Big Man On Campus wrote:

Big As Hell Runner wrote:

Because I have no interest in doing that job you idiot. That doesn't change the fact that he is not good at it. And I agree that he's a very nice man and great to talk to. He's just not good at broadcasting.

Then why don't you mute his voice and quit complaining....you "idiot." 😉

I don't think this is hard to grasp. I love track and field. Because I don't mute the guys covering it does NOT mean they're doing a good job. Because I tune in every time does not mean they have anything to do with it. Correlation does not equal causation.

The guy who compared it to the Tour de France hit the nail on the head. No silly comparisons to throwing a gallon of milk or carrying loaves of bread there- just factual evidence that makes the viewing experience better and more exciting.

If I had Jeff Van Gundy telling me to try throwing a 6 week old pumpkin over a 2 year old maple tree and having it land in an 18 gallon Home Depot bucket id be upset about that too- but I'd still watch. Of course, Van Gundy doesn't try to dumb it down. He just gives high level analysis that's fun and exciting.

ESPN- hire Ryan Fenton!

Announcers of the major sports do not have to express them in terms that people can relate to because they are all already first, compelling to watch in and of themselves, and second, extremely familiar. When you watch track, unless you are watching the sprints, weights, or pole vault, you don't really appreciate on tv just how fast they are and how hard it is to maintain those paces over those distances. That is why Rawson says those things, so that people watching what is not in and of itself compelling becomes the major achievement that it is for people not familiar with track, which is most people. However, if you act like it is fascinating and epic in itself, like Phil Liggett and even John Tesh in his ancient Tour de France narrations would do, it becomes fascinating for even non-competitors.

What kind of pedantic bs is this? "Correlation doesn't equal causation?" Stupid. Half the time I don’t pay attention to announcers whether it's T&F, NFL, college ball or whatever. Some people have a poor understanding of the sport they're watching, so they over-rely on the info from the announcers. And there's so much visual data now presented on the screen you'd have to blind not to know the current situation. Even the track events give you splits, the list of starters, and some background on the notables; wow...who could have imagined. We are nothing more than a world of whiners & complainers when it comes to sports broadcasting...who would have thought?