Oh Happy Days...

[Insider 0]

Well, he does...good for a go to, grab a comment guy, but to talk about what is going on, I dunno....whats his face in the youtube clip is the type of commentary that we need...thats how Murray was...excited (genuinely) and had a charisma about his words...

You can tell the guys that are over trying, and Legard was one of those....it just makes it horrible listening...

I agree but they know, they know....it will get better, I'm sure.

[JHS 1]

Of course he would and so would Ant but I believe they are both lights years better than DC as pundits.

I disagree. Coulthard was racing for much longer, and knows the sport inside out, from team orders (when he was team mate to Mika) to what it is like to be involved in a championship battle.

I'm not saying that Karun and Ant are bad drivers, but really they don't have as much experience in that area. Better voices maybe, but certainly not as good on the knowledge point of view.

[HandyNZL 1]

If you had to choose one as your development driver, you'd choose DC, thats what you're saying in a nutshell, right? No? Yes? Maybe? Perhaps? Possibly? Likely? Probably?

[JHS 1]

I just think he will add more to the commentary than Chandhok and Davidson put together.

[HandyNZL 1]

So you disagree with me? Why you....you....you.....you.....inbred.....

[Port-A-Loo 0]

Honestly, you can never tell how a driver will do in the box based on his/her career. I've seen quite a few experienced ex-drivers step in and be terrible; it's not that they don't know anything, they just can't communicate it well, and instead get stuck using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Likewise, I've seen inexperienced and unsuccessful drivers make great analysts; James Hinchcliffe was doing the commentary for Champ Car before he had ever even driven a Champ Car and he was one of the best. A great analyst can do it all, too. Wally Dallenbach's just as good on NASCAR as he is on ALMS and Champ Car. Admittedly, he's dabbled in all three types, but never ALMS specifically, and only 4 CART races to his credit. Same goes for play-by-play commentators; Mike Joy has called NASCAR, F1, INDYCAR, the Winter Olympics, baseball, football, soccer, volleyball, skiing, swimming, track and field, and wrestling despite his career beginning on the stock car short tracks in the Northeast.

Point being, the experience that D.C. can bring is great, but someone with 1% the experience and three times the ability to communicate what they do know will always be better to listen to. Which isn't to say D.C.'s bad at his job because, well, we haven't seen him in his new role yet. I'll complain then.

[Rainmaster 7]

Honestly, you can never tell how a driver will do in the box based on his/her career. I've seen quite a few experienced ex-drivers step in and be terrible; it's not that they don't know anything, they just can't communicate it well, and instead get stuck using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Likewise, I've seen inexperienced and unsuccessful drivers make great analysts; James Hinchcliffe was doing the commentary for Champ Car before he had ever even driven a Champ Car and he was one of the best. A great analyst can do it all, too. Wally Dallenbach's just as good on NASCAR as he is on ALMS and Champ Car. Admittedly, he's dabbled in all three types, but never ALMS specifically, and only 4 CART races to his credit. Same goes for play-by-play commentators; Mike Joy has called NASCAR, F1, INDYCAR, the Winter Olympics, baseball, football, soccer, volleyball, skiing, swimming, track and field, and wrestling despite his career beginning on the stock car short tracks in the Northeast.

Point being, the experience that D.C. can bring is great, but someone with 1% the experience and three times the ability to communicate what they do know will always be better to listen to. Which isn't to say D.C.'s bad at his job because, well, we haven't seen him in his new role yet. I'll complain then.

True. Precisely why Legard and Allen failed, good knowledge of the sport but not good communicators. Regarding DC though, we have seen him communicate plenty of times in his role as pundit. He's usually succinct, articulate and knowledgeable, so there is a lot of hope for him in the new role. I think Brundle is the one more likely to struggle, with the change of pace, but we'll see.

[JHS 1]

I personally like the Scottish accent.

[LabradoRacer 2]

What's the big deal about commentary? If the races are boring, not even the most ADHD commentator can liven up proceedings.

[Rainmaster 7]

What's the big deal about commentary? If the races are boring, not even the most ADHD commentator can liven up proceedings.

The problem is any race, good or bad, can be made worse by poor commentary, and a good race can always be made better by good commentary. That is why a lot of people take it so seriously.

[JHS 1]

I think people pay way too much attention to what the commentator is saying and not enough attention to what is going on in the race sometimes!

[Port-A-Loo 0]

What's the big deal about commentary? If the races are boring, not even the most ADHD commentator can liven up proceedings.

Racing's a television show, like any other sport. You need the whole package. They pay top commentators a lot because they enhance a race. You don't want viewers to tune out at moments when little or nothing is happening; you need commentators to fill those gaps. Likewise, the exciting bits seem more exciting when the commentator has some passion; it gets you into it, too. For the top 1% of passionate racing fans, commentary may be easily overlooked, but for the 99% that make up the rest of the viewers, you do need good commentary to put on a good show.

[JHS 1]

To quote Martin Brundle's twitter:

It's all about the racing, not the presenters/commentators. We are only there to share our knowledge and glue the programme together.

Enough said.

[Port-A-Loo 0]

He should forfeit his salary if the job he does is so insignificant.

I'll go back to my last post; the top 1% of enthusiasts are a lot different than the regular 99% of viewers. Brundle's thinking like the former group (because he's in it), but not considering anyone else.

Of course, production is the most important thing in racing. There can be a pass for the lead that means nothing if the producers are showing an onboard of Ralf Schumacher riding around in P13.

EDIT: And, as with anything, it isn't what people should think/care about/whatever, it's what they do. Like it or not, people care about the commentary, whether you do or don't or think they should or shouldn't. I can't watch any sport with bad commentary, personally, even NASCAR or hockey.

[JHS 1]

Then put it on mute. It is pretty easy to see what is happening even without commentary most of the time.

[Rainmaster 7]

Yeah c'mon Eric use your head huh? Jeeeez!

[JHS 1]

Martin Brundle is spot on with what he says.

Do I turn in to watch an F1 race, or any motor race for that matter, to make note and write a 3 page essay on the errors the commentators make?

No. I tune in to watch the racing. That is what I am really interested in. I couldn't care less if they guy's speaking gibberish or has tourettes. The only thing I don't like is blatant bias. I had no problem with James Allen other than the fact that he was mentioning Lewis Hamilton and Lewis Hamilton only, which was fine if you were a supporter of his, but if you were a supporter of one of the other 23 drivers on the grid, it did get slightly annoying. If the commentator is seriously bugging you, switch the sound off, like I sometimes did when Allen was commentating.

Without wishing to sound arrogant, I've been following this sport long enough to have an understanding of what's going on even without the commentator. I don't need to be told Driver X is coming into the pit late for option tyres, because I can see that with something called eyes.

I just find it amusing that people are there with a note pad and pen check marking every time a commentator says the slightest thing. "OMG! He's said 'and' 10 times already! Ben Edwards wouldn't do that!"

Give these guys a freaking break. Faced with a microphone with millions of people tunned in, you probably wouldn't even manage a nervous squeak.

[Quiet One 15]

Do I turn in to watch an F1 race, or any motor race for that matter, to make note and write a 3 page essay on the errors the commentators make?

Do they get paid for to be ignored by everybody no matter if they are singing "Torna Surriento" while the race is on? If so, can I apply?

No. I tune in to watch the racing. That is what I am really interested in. I couldn't care less if they guy's speaking gibberish or has tourettes. The only thing I don't like is blatant bias. I had no problem with James Allen other than the fact that he was mentioning Lewis Hamilton and Lewis Hamilton only, which was fine if you were a supporter of his, but if you were a supporter of one of the other 23 drivers on the grid, it did get slightly annoying. If the commentator is seriously bugging you, switch the sound off, like I sometimes did when Allen was commentating.

Are you sure James Allen only mentioned Lewis? Did you keep count?

Without wishing to sound arrogant, I've been following this sport long enough to have an understanding of what's going on even without the commentator. I don't need to be told Driver X is coming into the pit late for option tyres, because I can see that with something called eyes.

Good, I could use something with your experience to tell me the position of the rear wing and the KERS activation, in case the on screen info is deficient.

I just find it amusing that people are there with a note pad and pen check marking every time a commentator says the slightest thing. "OMG! He's said 'and' 10 times already! Ben Edwards wouldn't do that!"

Errr...I have no idea who is Ben Edwards...actually I couldn't care less for Leggard either, or Brundle or James Allen because thats a Brits only problem

Give these guys a freaking break. Faced with a microphone with millions of people tunned in, you probably wouldn't even manage a nervous squeak.

Maybe not, as in my case, for example, Im just an imports/exports specialist. Then again, I bet these guys wouldn't be able to pass their own dirty laundry through Customs if on their own. That is why I get paid and criticized and eventually fired or promoted based on what I do and know about. And this is exactly why they should get praised, criticized, fired or promoted. And, believ me, they get paid a lot more generously than I do, although my job consists on being responsible for the timely delivery of critical eyecare products and surgery equipments whereas all they have to do is utter in a more or less bearable manner all sorts of info so obvious than even you and I could give it....because we have enough experience from watching F1 and can see that with something called eyes.

Sorry, didn't mean to give ou a rough time and like I said, I don't even care about Leggard, or Allen or Murray. Is just that your arguments sucked . But hey, if I'm picking on you is because I consider that, unlike others with worse arguments around the Forum, you still have potential!

I self nominate myself for "most arrogant post of the year" (Isn't "self nominate myself" redundant?? )

[Port-A-Loo 0]

This whole debate is stupid. Someone wanted to know why commentary was important, some people explained, and suddenly it was a "I'm a better viewer than you!" competition. Some people care about commentary (I do, to an extent much lesser than you interpret), some people don't. Enough people do that commentators exist and get paid. I don't know what that has to do with my ability to commentate (which I'm not trained or paid to do), or pages of notes that I don't take, or essays that I don't write. If I don't enjoy what I watch for whatever reason, I stop. In rare cases, that has been commentary, though I imagine if it were a 3-3 match or there was an overtake for the lead, I wouldn't have turned it off...

Now where do I find that there mute thing-a-ma-jig y'all was talkin bout just then? I reckon I ain't no good with these here televisions. I didn't never realize you could watch yourself some TV without that there volume all the way up and I ain't never tried it before.

[Rainmaster 7]

Yep, I don't know why this is a debate (well, off season perhaps..) but thanks for saving me a post baldylocks. You still owe me a few though (posts that is).

[JHS 1]

I'm just fed-up of the consistent whinging. I get it. You didn't like Legard. I get it. Even though you haven't heard him commentate at all, you don't like David Coulthard.

I understand. Now could we possibly move on and talk about something much more worth while, eg the racing?

[Port-A-Loo 0]

EDIT: Upon further review, I'll just let you pretend I said anything negative about D.C. and let it go.

[HandyNZL 1]

Martin Brundle is spot on with what he says.

Do I turn in to watch an F1 race, or any motor race for that matter, to make note and write a 3 page essay on the errors the commentators make?

No. I tune in to watch the racing. That is what I am really interested in. I couldn't care less if they guy's speaking gibberish or has tourettes. The only thing I don't like is blatant bias. I had no problem with James Allen other than the fact that he was mentioning Lewis Hamilton and Lewis Hamilton only, which was fine if you were a supporter of his, but if you were a supporter of one of the other 23 drivers on the grid, it did get slightly annoying. If the commentator is seriously bugging you, switch the sound off, like I sometimes did when Allen was commentating.

Without wishing to sound arrogant, I've been following this sport long enough to have an understanding of what's going on even without the commentator. I don't need to be told Driver X is coming into the pit late for option tyres, because I can see that with something called eyes.

I just find it amusing that people are there with a note pad and pen check marking every time a commentator says the slightest thing. "OMG! He's said 'and' 10 times already! Ben Edwards wouldn't do that!"

Give these guys a freaking break. Faced with a microphone with millions of people tunned in, you probably wouldn't even manage a nervous squeak.

I do believe you need your eyes tested, for when James Allen was commentating there were only ten teams on the grid, which means there were only 19 other drivers....perhaps if you paid attention to the commentator instead of using your smarty pants eyes, you might have known that

[JHS 1]

Whatever Mr Nitpicker.

By the way, you missed a full stop off the end of the sentence. If you got your smarty pant eyes, you might have known that.

[dribbler 6]

Well, my Dad is bigger than all of yours(.)