Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Caz

Worst and Best Commentators

Recommended Posts

I actually miss Thorne and Clement, too. Not so much for the game calls or insights, but for their voices and obvious friendship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but in all my years of playing hockey, I have never sashayed in the offensive zone.

Doc's ability to overstate the obvious("the period of the long change") is redundant. His constant use of making the trivial sound important("When Tyler Johnson was a young boy in Spokane, Washington, his parents would drive him to Vancouver to play in tournaments.") is annoying. Doc, every player in the NHL had their parents drive them to tournaments!!! That is how you get to a tournament.

As for getting the Vin Scully award, that is the problem: Doc calls a hockey game like it's a baseball game and he is Vin Scully. He is not Vin Scully. Vin Scully calls Dodgers games by himself. Baseball has the time between pitches(when they are not telling you that this 3 and 2 pitch is brought to you by Verizon, at least on Yankees games) to tell stories. Hockey doesn't with the constant action. Doc, just call play-by-play. Please. "OH MY!!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing with Emrick, there is being eloquent in painting a picture, and then there is going overboard and creating words or using them inappropriately to sound more so. Sometimes in doing the later, the actual play and definition of such starts getting lost, or jumbled, or just sound ridiculous. I don't think the majority of people watching hockey have their doctorates, there are plenty of average joe hockey fans around as well, especially around the 5th beer.

I don't want someone calling games that will make it about them, or whatever words they think are fun to just toss in, I want it to be about the play on ice. Describe the play, accent with knowledge, in a voice that is clear and smooth to follow and you have me sold. This is what Strader does well in my book, and why I prefer him. I will give you this though, Emrick makes a much better announcer for drinking games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In defense of Emrick, there are one or two occasions per game when I'll say, "Okay, I admit that wouldn't have sounded so stupid if it weren't for that godawful shrill voice....."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The complaints about Emrick's vocabulary mystify me. The man has a Ph.D and hockey draws a more affluent and educated crowd. If there is any viewing audience who might enjoy a verbal range, one would think it would be a hockey audience.

I'm not sure what this means. The facts that a man was able to remember a bunch of words, or has a Ph.D,. have nothing to do with with the task at hand. He's like a writer who never learned the concept of excess -- more is better, whether it be syllables, or the displayed extent of his lexicon. And, no, Emrick is not the show -- he does not draw the crowd -- the games do! As to "verbal range", incessant babbling of terms I would call "anti-descriptive" is a detriment, not a benefit, to the viewers.

What I most respect for Emrick is that he truly knows the game, its players, its coaches, and even the on-ice officials. And his love for the game is so evident. Yet, he seems to be egoless. This is where your criticism, Wranger, confuses me. More than any other broadcaster, Emrick knows he's knot the show. He's devoted to the game on the ice and lets it speak for itself better than anyone in any sport that I can recall. Your claim about Emrick not fading into the background is contradicted by Emrick's call of last year's Cup clinching game. What a short memory you have. Emrick didn't speak for nearly two straight minutes as the game (a most tense, double overtime, I'll add) wrapped:

His use of words screams for attention, distracting viewers from the action on the ice, especially his neverending search for the most inapplicable verb to describe the movement of the puck.

And his stream of stories and irrelevant facts draw even more attention to him, when a viewer can see very well that the puck is in motion, and sometimes a goal has been scored, while Emrick is still off in his own world of beloved exposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn you guys.

I never gave Emrick's call a second thought, but now that you guys bring up the "fallafel" and the "sauntered into the zone" stuff, I see what you mean and I will never hear him call a game the same again.

I do admit that I kind of like his voice, although he does tend to make ordinary saves sound like they are amazing and extraordinary. mostly I am happy just to watch a game, regardless of who's voice is narrating.

I listened to alot of streaming radio hockey this year, and the only one that annoyed me was the color guy (Dave Maloney?) for the ranger broadcast. Man that guy is a debbie downer, always pointing out how the Rangers are blowing it, and he's the hometown broadcast!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference being the Rangers are a quality team that usually does well, a lot easier to find silver linings than leafs games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the ENTIRE game have to be filled with WORDS? Let the picture and sounds of the game shine.

The most enjoyable TV experience I ever had with hockey was when CBC (I believe) carried the World's with a secondary audio channel that was simply ice-level noise: no commentary at all, just the crowd and the ice.

I'm not sure what this means. The facts that a man was able to remember a bunch of words, or has a Ph.D,. have nothing to do with with the task at hand. He's like a writer who never learned the concept of excess -- more is better, whether it be syllables, or the displayed extent of his lexicon. And, no, Emrick is not the show -- he does not draw the crowd -- the games do! As to "verbal range", incessant babbling of terms I would call "anti-descriptive" is a detriment, not a benefit, to the viewers.

His use of words screams for attention, distracting viewers from the action on the ice, especially his neverending search for the most inapplicable verb to describe the movement of the puck.

And his stream of stories and irrelevant facts draw even more attention to him, when a viewer can see very well that the puck is in motion, and sometimes a goal has been scored, while Emrick is still off in his own world of beloved exposition.

This. You'd think someone who did that much study in communications would have figured out how to communicate effectively, or at least how to avoid communicating ineffectively in a given context.

I'm certainly guilty of throwing out obtuse and academic turns of phrase at times, but I try not to do it when I'm describing a goddamn hockey game. I can just picture it now: "A Hermeneutics of the Forecheck..."

The funny part is that if you ran Emrick's play-by-plays through a lexical analysis, it would be decidedly unimpressive. He reminds me of all the people who studied like hell for their GREs to get into US grad schools, and spent about six weeks wandering around aimlessly using words they didn't really understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His use of words screams for attention, distracting viewers from the action on the ice, especially his neverending search for the most inapplicable verb to describe the movement of the puck.

And his stream of stories and irrelevant facts draw even more attention to him, when a viewer can see very well that the puck is in motion, and sometimes a goal has been scored, while Emrick is still off in his own world of beloved exposition.

I think he does that for the uneducated fan. It drives me crazy too. The random stories are the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don Cherry though not play by play is da best. I do believe he is actually from da range in NE MN.

Greatest broadcaster and coach. Bobby Orr the greatest player or maybe Phil Housely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never been a fan of strader, I hated how the coyotes let go Kurt Kielback to bring in strader. Pissed me off especially his enthusiasm when the red wings scored on the coyotes.

Also Matt McConnell sucks, he and Tyson nash are a ball of burning garbage rolling down a field of crap. McConnell would be better if they dumped Tyson nash I'm sure. Until then, I wouldn't dare put them up that high because he and Nash are the mike smith excuse train on anything he does wrong.

John Forslund is one of the best, I love his voice, and I love the montreal English feed guys, I forget his name but his color guy is Sergio Momesso and they're easily one of the best

Also Plus over 9,000 to the guy who mentioned missing Thorne and Clement, they were easily the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best: John Davidson (when he was NYR broadcaster)

Worst: CBJ announcers. I was forced to listen to the 2nd game of the NYR season on their network since GCL did not carry the NYR broadcast. One or both of those guys sounds like a WWF wrestler (what a normal person sounds like when he is taking a big,dry dump and really focusing on getting it out, while carrying on a conversation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate how all local announcers now just spin everything to make their team look good. I don't expect them to slam the team but it has gotten so bad the last ten too fifteen years.

It's really bad how they, at times, talk down to the viewer as if they have never seen a hockey game.

As a Bruins fan I love when their on NBCSN. At least you get a more honest look at your team. Emerick isn't great but I'll take him over Edwards any day.


Saw this and thought of this thread.

1529692_668418518245_1116871174_o_1024_z

That's funny Where did you find it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laughing so hard

https://vine.co/v/eYamuuUh21Y

I hate how all local announcers now just spin everything to make their team look good.

Unless you're watching a Leaf game on CBC, in which case all you hear all game long is how much the team sucks.

It's funny that they suggest the fans won't stand for a rebuild. No guys, we welcome it. It's YOU that won't stand for it because you can't complain about the team sucking when they're supposed to suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...