TV coverage

I seem to be in a minority here, but I thought ITV's coverage was pretty good, the presenters' enthusiasm more than making up for a few rough edges. A great advance on C4's efforts.
 
Venusian said:
I seem to be in a minority here, but I thought ITV's coverage was pretty good, the presenters' enthusiasm more than making up for a few rough edges. A great advance on C4's efforts.
Click to expand...

I agree, I hadn't really seen much of any of them before but have been pleasantly surprised by the coverage in general and have really enjoyed this week. I think they have quite a difficult task in trying to appeal to casual viewers as well as existing fans (not the right word maybe) and I do think they are making a reasonable job of it.
 
Didn't think the coverage was too bad on the whole, given the need to balance attracting the casual viewer with keeping the more informed happy.

Particularly enjoyed the Pipe/MCoy segments and thought the tribute to JT was sensitively done.

Can't warm to Chamberlain yet but maybe that will happen in time.

Fitz is terrible - they really should have kept Francome instead. Harvey is a buffoon.

Don't mind Chapman though I appreciate he's a 'marmite' character a bit like McCririck.

Pendleton is easy on the eye and at least knows about professional sport. I've a lot of respect for what she achieved as a jockey because it's not easy for someone with no experience to do what she did. She was a total pain after the Foxhunter though - you would've expected some insight given she rode the horse last year, but all we got was 'wow, that's so amazing.'

The weather lady is totally superfluous to requirements.
 
To be fair, I think most people involved with the horse probably couldn't have managed anything much more coherent than "wow that's so amazing" for a little while after [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Coverage, though, still falls miles short of what the BBC would have done back in the day.

I've got all four days recorded and plan to go through it all over the next few weeks but on the occasions I caught an internet stream of the last two races on RUK I thought it was refreshing to hear Nick Luck again. Definitely better than Chamberlin.
 
Deal.

(I don't find Pendleton that attractive. She's not unattractive but given the choice I'd take the weathergirl first, preferably along with Carol Kirkwood.)
 
Specially for TheBear:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • ck(2).jpg
    ck(2).jpg
    7.3 KB · Views: 86
Desert Orchid said:
Coverage, though, still falls miles short of what the BBC would have done back in the day.

I've got all four days recorded and plan to go through it all over the next few weeks but on the occasions I caught an internet stream of the last two races on RUK I thought it was refreshing to hear Nick Luck again. Definitely better than Chamberlin.
Click to expand...

It's easy to get misty eyed about the BBC coverage but at the end it was fairly average -I know it wasn't the festival but I can remember the equivalent of the open meeting when Make A Stand ran in the Handicap Hurdle on Mackeson Day or whatever it was -Grandstand showed 3 races -1240 -115 and 150-going back to table tennis or whatever after each race.Forget BBC -racing coverage has never been as good.
 
Fair points, Luke.

But when they weren't sharing the day with other sports we got good paddock coverage and latterly we got big screen re-runs with analyses football-style. We also need wide-screen views of finishes to get a perspective on the distances and slow-mo runs-through on tight finishes all the way back through the field.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I presume you're speaking for yourself.

I spent 35 years instructing people on how to talk intelligently and knowledgably in front of recording equipment.

I know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

If I were speaking for myself Desert Orchid, i'd be lining up petty criticisms of people on TV, like you have done, and you have done on a regular basis on this thread. The fact you cannot see that some of the comments on here are from "half empty glass types" sort of tells me that its you who should be being taught how to read what is actually in black and white.

Its not myself that has a problem with ITV's coverage, its yourself and a few other petty snipers that seem to have an issue. The fact that you think the BBC coverage was better informs me that your level of judgement isn't too hot when it comes to TV racing coverage. Are you sure it was 35 years, or minutes?
 
J Mangold said:
I think a few of you on here are so petty in needing to have a strike at these guys. Its not like you are exactly astute yourselfs is it?, or any good in front of a camera? What I read here is typical "can't do but can spot when others can't do" mentality. The coverage has been top notch, I'd be looking at yourselves and check if actually, you don't really even like yourselves never mind anyone else.

Some of the reading here is boredom reading in the extreme, is it really what you are like as individuals? I'm surprised you don't top yourselfs with the negativity you appear to view life through. I imagine a lottery win would disappoint a few of you.
Click to expand...

If this isn't a petty pop at fellow forum contributors then what exactly is it?

You've already been outed for what you are. A troll. I'll say my piece and after that you're on ignore until you crawl back under the boulder from which you were inadvertently uncovered.




J Mangold said:
If I were speaking for myself Desert Orchid, i'd be lining up petty criticisms of people on TV, like you have done, and you have done on a regular basis on this thread. The fact you cannot see that some of the comments on here are from "half empty glass types" sort of tells me that its you who should be being taught how to read what is actually in black and white.
Click to expand...

I started the thread for a reason. I'm a racing fan. I want the best possible coverage I can get. I don't want lazy presentation or analysis. I want quality and if I'm not getting it I'm entitled to offer my opinion. Am I to sit back and gladly accept a substandard service? Should I be grateful for the little mercies the broadcasting companies throw out way?

What exactly in 'black and white' am I missing that I should be reading? And perhaps you level criticisms at other people's reading skills once you learn to spell correctly.


J Mangold said:
The fact that you think the BBC coverage was better informs me that your level of judgement isn't too hot when it comes to TV racing coverage.
Click to expand...

Quality is in the eye of the beholder, to paraphrase a saying. I say it the BBC does this kind of thing better. You say different. Live with your preference. I'll live with mine.




J Mangold said:
Are you sure it was 35 years, or minutes?
Click to expand...

Erm... what was that you were saying about petty?

You slag me off for criticising the TV coverage and then completely dismiss my entire career?

Very mature.

Anyway, go ahead and write all you like in reply. I'll be happy knowing you're wasting all your so precious time - time that could be better spent learning how to spell and construct sentences.

Cheers, Bud.
 
Desert Orchid said:
If this isn't a petty pop at fellow forum contributors then what exactly is it?

You've already been outed for what you are. A troll. I'll say my piece and after that you're on ignore until you crawl back under the boulder from which you were inadvertently uncovered.






I started the thread for a reason. I'm a racing fan. I want the best possible coverage I can get. I don't want lazy presentation or analysis. I want quality and if I'm not getting it I'm entitled to offer my opinion. Am I to sit back and gladly accept a substandard service? Should I be grateful for the little mercies the broadcasting companies throw out way?

What exactly in 'black and white' am I missing that I should be reading? And perhaps you level criticisms at other people's reading skills once you learn to spell correctly.




Quality is in the eye of the beholder, to paraphrase a saying. I say it the BBC does this kind of thing better. You say different. Live with your preference. I'll live with mine.






Erm... what was that you were saying about petty?

You slag me off for criticising the TV coverage and then completely dismiss my entire career?

Very mature.

Anyway, go ahead and write all you like in reply. I'll be happy knowing you're wasting all your so precious time - time that could be better spent learning how to spell and construct sentences.

Cheers, Bud.
Click to expand...

Phew, what an unpleasant precious person you are Desert Orchid. So much for new members being welcomed. They are welcomed as long as they tow some party line it appears. Bear in mind, I may be a new member, but I have read the forum for a long while. The accusation of being a troll just because you disagree with my view says more about you than I. You seem a pretty precious arrogant person, thats fine by me, I meet many similar types.
 
you got it easy. I was accused by someone with 10K+ posts of not only being a troll(ignore the irony) but that I'm impersonating another user on here.. then it continued with lectures about some great horses and wiki quotes that were 90% written by me, so unwillingly they accused me on here with something I wrote on other places. Its the hazard of internet I presume but as far as @DO goes, he's a great poster but I think you were the one that started with the remarks that derailed the conversation into personal territory, namely: http://www.talkinghorses.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?18618-TV-coverage&p=674573&viewfull=1#post674573
 
To be honest I dislike both Ch4 and ITV coverage - not really on content from either but I just got fed up with watching a race finish then immediately 5 minutes of watching well off people in Dubai having a coffee or swimming with horses. ITV is slightly less nauseating as the ads are more varied but still cuts in immediately after. That's the problem with catching the bulk terrestrial TV audience, it would be much more effective at doing so if it were on BBC but they are adamant blowing 90% of their (and our !!!!) sports budget on 2 weeks of never ending tennis in July across 3 or four channels.

RUK all afternoon does me just fine, with the back button for ATR in between
 
I watched a bit of it again this afternoon.

One thing I've been meaning to mention is Hoiles's commentaries.

I always felt when we got him standing in occasionally he was right up there with Simon Holt so didn't mind too much that he got the gig on the new programme. His diction is really clear and he does try to identify each horse in the early stages. I also used to like his intonation.

However, quite a few times lately I've not been able to see any preambles to races so have just tuned in as the races are starting and I find that he isn't very accurate and the bigger the field the more I notice this.

I think it was Ian Bartlett who took over at the weekend there and he was much more accurate in identifying the horses and getting their positions correct. Then again, the only field of any real size was the Midlands National so I'd like to see him have a go at big fields more often.
 
At The Races to be rebranded Sky Sports Racing as Sky have become the majority shareholder, wonder how long before there's an extra charge either within the Sky Sports package or as a separate entity like RUK.
 
Diamond Geezer said:
At The Races to be rebranded Sky Sports Racing as Sky have become the majority shareholder, wonder how long before there's an extra charge either within the Sky Sports package or as a separate entity like RUK.
Click to expand...

Would seem a bit rich to charge extra for run of the mill racing when they've lost the Champions League & the Ashes in recent times.

Hopefully the dedicated website remains.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top