geoff conway needs to get away from the microphone
- Thread starter scttybee
- Start date
Totally agree and was thinking the same thing. I've never seen him hit a ball but it doesn't sound like he knows which end of the cue to use...
How dare you stain Mr. Conway's name like that. Geoff is the Vince Scully of pool commentators. And Cleary, you haven't seen him hit a ball because he's banned from playing pool in 13 states.
Nice guy from the exceptional website NYCGrind. I've read some of his articles and he does a solid job when he's covering an event and writing for that site, which you should check out at your first opportunity.
Nonetheless, he is the worst pool commentator I've ever listened to. He shows almost no insight into game situations or tactics, offers nothing about the players styles, strengths, weaknesses, or previous head-to-head matches, dealing primarily in pool cliches that add no value for the listener.
Worst of all, he's often not smart enough to defer the microphone to his more knowledgeable commentating partners, sometimes forcing them to expend energy correcting him. You can almost feel DiLiberto's pain when he's paired with Geoff.
Nonetheless, he is the worst pool commentator I've ever listened to. He shows almost no insight into game situations or tactics, offers nothing about the players styles, strengths, weaknesses, or previous head-to-head matches, dealing primarily in pool cliches that add no value for the listener.
Worst of all, he's often not smart enough to defer the microphone to his more knowledgeable commentating partners, sometimes forcing them to expend energy correcting him. You can almost feel DiLiberto's pain when he's paired with Geoff.
I was going to play devil's advocate for a moment and say give the guy a break. But if Stu says it then it must have merit.
He sounds to me like a light version of Sid Waddel. Sid, famously was/is a commentator in Britain who says things like "he cut that thinner than a butterfly's eyelash". Not much on depth on the game but certainly plenty of color.
Geoff sounds like he is trying to imitate this and maybe a bit of Jim Wych (sp) as well. Says a lot of things like "he's going downtown/uptown/midtown/out-of-town".
Anyway, this is pool folks. Accu-Stats is as broke as the rest of us and it's not easy to find experienced and good commentators willing to sit there for hours. These are not broadcast pros we are getting so my thoughts are we should be a little easier on the criticism.
On the up side, for me at least, the stream is clear and flawless.
Here we go again.
Conway introducing the Brittany Bryant vs Ernesto Dominguez makes the comment that these are two textbook players, suggesting that their styles are both traditional and similar. Kudos to Samm Diep for not calling him out on it.
In case anyone cares, these players couldn't be more different in style. What they share is that they are both talented. Ernesto the veteran. Brittany a rsiing but still emerging force in women's pool. Two delightful people, too.
Brittany is, basically, a young gun, a sharpshooter who'll need the match to be offense-oriented to have a chance. She doesn't possess the kind of technical or tactical knowledge that Ernesto posseses but her aim is sure, her stroke solid. Ernesto is the whole package, a great technician with veteran composure who will not be outmaneuvered. In all likelihood, unless his execution is poor, he'll have a big advantage here.
Of course, as long as we've got Conway at the helm, how would any listener really learn anything about the players and their skills, styles, strengths and weaknesses.
All that said, I'm rooting for Brittany!
Conway introducing the Brittany Bryant vs Ernesto Dominguez makes the comment that these are two textbook players, suggesting that their styles are both traditional and similar. Kudos to Samm Diep for not calling him out on it.
In case anyone cares, these players couldn't be more different in style. What they share is that they are both talented. Ernesto the veteran. Brittany a rsiing but still emerging force in women's pool. Two delightful people, too.
Brittany is, basically, a young gun, a sharpshooter who'll need the match to be offense-oriented to have a chance. She doesn't possess the kind of technical or tactical knowledge that Ernesto posseses but her aim is sure, her stroke solid. Ernesto is the whole package, a great technician with veteran composure who will not be outmaneuvered. In all likelihood, unless his execution is poor, he'll have a big advantage here.
Of course, as long as we've got Conway at the helm, how would any listener really learn anything about the players and their skills, styles, strengths and weaknesses.
All that said, I'm rooting for Brittany!
You know who I want to hear?
YOU!
I honestly can't think of another poster on the forums who has been more thoroughly and accurately analytical of professional player's playing styles and abilities contrasted with their finishes than you have been.
If you can translate your great writing into real-time commentary then you paired with any great player should be a real winning combination.
Where can I vote!
So far so good. Ernesto missing everything in sight and Brittany making him pay for it. Go Brittany go!
Thanks for the compliment, John. Yes, I am verbally lucid, as well. To be honest, though, I prefer Geoff's voice to my own for commentary. He has quite a nice delivery. My voice is a bit nasal, to be honest.
Still, this is my 36th year of following the tournament trail so I've got a pretty big knowledge base to draw on, and I'd obviously be up to this.
I've never had any interest in commentating, though. As I'd never accept pay for it, I prefer that those who need the money get the opportunities.
Guess I just feel I deserve better than Conway when I spend $60 on the stream.
Still, I'm feeling some guilt here. I like Geoff as a person and see him as a guy who loves our sport and contributes to it in several ways. Pool needs more Geoff Conways, just not as commentators.
Last edited:
You are both marvelous, putting thoughts into words is a wonderful talent and you rock.
As long as we're talking about pool commentators -- here's something that has bugged me for ages.
My guess is that the people who watch pool streams and recorded matches are, for the most part, fairly knowledgeable pool fans. We DO NOT need the commentators to give their prognostication of what the shooter is going to do on every single shot, no matter how simple or routine.
The commentators seem to feel they must fill the entire time period with constant chatter. Every time I hear one particular guy he is the epitome of trite verbosity. And many others are nearly as bad. PLEASE -- STOP IT! Give us some credit for knowing what is going on.
Speak (1) when you have something that really adds to our knowledge of the game situation at hand, or (2) when you have other tidbits of information about the players, the match, or the event, or (3) when you have interesting, related side stories. But just blabbering on and on with remarks that are banal or relate to straightforward game situations is annoying and even insulting to the viewers.
Also, it wouldn't hurt if the commentators bothered to do a little background work before commentating. Attend the players' meeting and learn what rules are in effect. Gather some background information on the players being streamed.
Caveat -- I know, it's not an easy job. Conditions can be poor, the hours can be long, the pay is poor or non-existent. We're lucky to have anyone, right? And, no, I probably couldn't do it any better (and wouldn't want to try).
My guess is that the people who watch pool streams and recorded matches are, for the most part, fairly knowledgeable pool fans. We DO NOT need the commentators to give their prognostication of what the shooter is going to do on every single shot, no matter how simple or routine.
The commentators seem to feel they must fill the entire time period with constant chatter. Every time I hear one particular guy he is the epitome of trite verbosity. And many others are nearly as bad. PLEASE -- STOP IT! Give us some credit for knowing what is going on.
Speak (1) when you have something that really adds to our knowledge of the game situation at hand, or (2) when you have other tidbits of information about the players, the match, or the event, or (3) when you have interesting, related side stories. But just blabbering on and on with remarks that are banal or relate to straightforward game situations is annoying and even insulting to the viewers.
Also, it wouldn't hurt if the commentators bothered to do a little background work before commentating. Attend the players' meeting and learn what rules are in effect. Gather some background information on the players being streamed.
Caveat -- I know, it's not an easy job. Conditions can be poor, the hours can be long, the pay is poor or non-existent. We're lucky to have anyone, right? And, no, I probably couldn't do it any better (and wouldn't want to try).
Last edited:
Thats better than how my commentary usually goes:
"And here all he has to do is draw the ball three inches"
Then the guy promptly follows the ball three rails.
Want to have real fun commentating? Call a three hour one pocket match between two players you have never seen before. Fun for the whole family right there.
Poor Samm, the end was classic. Geoff, "cheerio everyone, Samm say cheerio to everyone." Samm: "do I have to say cheerio?" Geoff, "yes you do", silence.......... Samm: "how about I just wish everyone a good night?"
But wouldn't it be funny if Robert Byrne did commentary? "So, here we have an example of a textbook player, my textbook of course....."
"For this shot he will want to hit it with two tips medium stun in order to force the cue ball along the tangent line as serious students already know from reading page 67 of my Standard Book of Pool Volume Two."
And related...........
Bob Henning actually did something like this where he took a match with Archer and someone else and overdubbed his commentary from an instructor's point of view. I bought it and never watched it. Guess I should have.
Seriously, I almost can't listen... The guy drives me nuts. I know how hard it is to be on the mic. I sit in from time to time on TAR, but mostly just try to offer comic relief.
But this guy is totally monotone for starters, makes me want to fall asleep, but the breathing in the mic and strange mouth noises when he's drinking out of a straw suddenly keep me awake and angry. The constant "uptown/downtown" referring to the table puts me on instaTILT!
But this guy is totally monotone for starters, makes me want to fall asleep, but the breathing in the mic and strange mouth noises when he's drinking out of a straw suddenly keep me awake and angry. The constant "uptown/downtown" referring to the table puts me on instaTILT!
I, too vote for Stu in the booth.
He would have been great at the last "World"
)) Straight Pool Championship, too, where his in depth knowledge of the game and the history of the game would have been a welcome relief from some of the patzers (myself included) who sat in on the commentary and helped fill the air waves with sound.It is very noble of him not to want to take a payday away from any of the paid commentators, but if the opportunity arises for him to fill in, without stepping on any toes, I say he should go for it and spread his knowledge.
Last edited:
Byrne has often commentated, but it's on three cushion billiards matches. He's very good at it.
One of the problems with Pool commentary is that some matches can take a long time and the game of Pool just doesn't have many big, huge momentum changes like an interception being run back for 6, to get you pumped up. It can be hard to have interesting things to say without stating some obvious points in the match.
That said, several points have been brought up here that can really make a tough job worse i.e. poor technique (odd mouth noises, speaking in monotone, poor pronunciation & overuse of "ahh, Umm, ehh").
Overall, I like commentary that sticks to the match at hand, with a few interesting side stories sprinkled in. IMO, the WORST commentary is when someone decides to use the mic as their personal pulpit without much focus on the match.
Lastly, I'll agree that Geoff Conway might be a better mime than commentator, sorry to say.
Eric
That said, several points have been brought up here that can really make a tough job worse i.e. poor technique (odd mouth noises, speaking in monotone, poor pronunciation & overuse of "ahh, Umm, ehh").
Overall, I like commentary that sticks to the match at hand, with a few interesting side stories sprinkled in. IMO, the WORST commentary is when someone decides to use the mic as their personal pulpit without much focus on the match.
Lastly, I'll agree that Geoff Conway might be a better mime than commentator, sorry to say.
Eric