I agree, but he professes his love for pool and if he is in the area he is generally at any big event. Not to mention the carry over from his MMA following that would pay to hear him read the phone book out loud.
JA vs MD push out after the break match.
- Thread starter bfdlad
- Start date
I agree, but he professes his love for pool and if he is in the area he is generally at any big event. Not to mention the carry over from his MMA following that would pay to hear him read the phone book out loud.
They aren't trying to be "psychic"
Do other sports talk about personal problems? Not hardly. It's no great mystery or secret what other sport's commentators talk about. They aren't trying to be "psychic" that's for sure. :thumbup:
Do other sports talk about personal problems? Not hardly. It's no great mystery or secret what other sport's commentators talk about. They aren't trying to be "psychic" that's for sure. :thumbup:
Yes they do... I even gave you an example with Ray Lewis...Do other sports talk about personal problems? Not hardly. It's no great mystery or secret what other sport's commentators talk about. They aren't trying to be "psychic" that's for sure. :thumbup:
Tiger Woods is another example.
Magic Johnson is another example.
Micahel Phelps in another example.
Manti Teo is another example. hell Iwoudlnt even know who this guy was if he media didnt air all that stuff about him having a fake girlfriend.
These are all example of people with personal stuff that the media and commentators have talked about during a competition.
Now you are saying it's obvious but you are also being extremely vague. I dont watch much sports and I'm sure there are a couple other people that are in the same boat as me. So can you clue us morons in who just arent getting at what you are saying? What would the commentators talk about then predicting the next shot?
Not for nothing, but they do this in baseball, but not to the same degree as we see in pool. But absolutely. Commentators "guess" on upcoming pitches based on count, indicate that this might be a good time to bunt, that this is probably his last batter that he'll face, that the manager will go to a left-hander, etc....
Freddie <~~~ if there's enough time, a commentator in any sport will say something to break up the air
They do it in football too whether the offense is going to pass or try a running play.
Hell the final passing series that SF had that was blocked at the Super Bowl, I believe the commentators and the rest of the world predicted they were going to run it.
The problem with pool is that unless you're at least a C player, you have no context to judge the skill level of pro players. IOW, unless you've spent a year or two of your life (if not more) actively trying to improve your pool game (hundreds of hours at the table), you're not going to be impressed by an Earl Strickland, or Shane or anyone else. That knowledge gap ---- the inability to recognize just how difficult the game is at the highest level ---- is what needs to be bridged if pool is to succeed with a general audience.
Golf is a good model, but the reasons golf has mainstream appeal is because it's very hard to dabble in golf. Anyone who has any exposure to golf knows how hard it is to drive a ball 450 yards, or even to get it off the tee. You have to invest long hours and money to get into the sport, and by then you are by definition an enthusiast. The hook is built-in to golf. There are almost no casual golfers, at least not in the sense of your average once-a-month banger at the pool hall.
Even people who have never played golf are impressed by a long drive, or a long putt. It's simply a macro expression of athleticism that pool does not exhibit (to the uninitiated). And at its core, golf is easy to understand: one ball, one hole. Get ball in hole.
In contrast, pool is very complex, but worse than that, it is seemingly simple. That is a very bad combination, and doesn't translate well into a general viewing audience.
Anyway, I think the fundamental problem with pool is that even people who think they play pool cannot understand the difficulty of the game. Figure out a way to bridge that gap and you might be onto something. You must invest thousands of hours into the game to even tell how bad you really are, or where you stack up against other players. There are guys at my poolhall who play day in and day out, who cannot tell the difference between B, A, and open players...and they're watching these players play multiple times a week!
-roger
Golf is a good model, but the reasons golf has mainstream appeal is because it's very hard to dabble in golf. Anyone who has any exposure to golf knows how hard it is to drive a ball 450 yards, or even to get it off the tee. You have to invest long hours and money to get into the sport, and by then you are by definition an enthusiast. The hook is built-in to golf. There are almost no casual golfers, at least not in the sense of your average once-a-month banger at the pool hall.
Even people who have never played golf are impressed by a long drive, or a long putt. It's simply a macro expression of athleticism that pool does not exhibit (to the uninitiated). And at its core, golf is easy to understand: one ball, one hole. Get ball in hole.
In contrast, pool is very complex, but worse than that, it is seemingly simple. That is a very bad combination, and doesn't translate well into a general viewing audience.
Anyway, I think the fundamental problem with pool is that even people who think they play pool cannot understand the difficulty of the game. Figure out a way to bridge that gap and you might be onto something. You must invest thousands of hours into the game to even tell how bad you really are, or where you stack up against other players. There are guys at my poolhall who play day in and day out, who cannot tell the difference between B, A, and open players...and they're watching these players play multiple times a week!
-roger
I think that color commentary isn't for the people that are in the know. It's for the 98% of the other people who aren't in the know.
Let's take the example of CJ's with other sports. For those that are the 2% that really know basketball, some of the plays, moves, timeouts, etc. maybe so mundane you might wonder why the "color commentators" bother mention them. But, the other 98% who certainly know something about basketball but might now know the ins and outs benefit.
Color commentary in pool I think works the same way. Since you represent that knowledgable pool player, then the commentary may just sound like white noise. To, let's just say, an APA Sl-4/8, they might actually have the opportunity to get much more benefit out of the commentary.
Freddie
Last edited:
Well said. Best post in the thread, I think.
What it boils down to is skill versus entertainment value as far as what will be the change agent for pool as a sport. Skill, as you state, is difficult to ascertain, but most people can appreciate entertainment. Once people are drawn into the sport because of entertainment, then spectors may begin to understand the skill aspect of pool. Until then, it will suffer as far as popularity.
Good Point. With golf people see the long putt or long drive and understand that it is difficult. When they see a full table straight in pool they think it's a damn hanger.
That's another sport where the commentators predict what the player is going to use before he pulls the club... and Tiger's 6 iron is worlds different then my 6 iron.
Last edited:
I understand if it's not broken don't fix it, but isn't pool broken?
Do you really thing 98% of the people that watch the streaming video that is commonly called "TV" doesn't know how to run out playing pool? And that's not the complete point, the point is "why is it so important to try to predict what the player is doing?" They're only right about 65% of the time anyway.
Why not just let them do it and concentrate on adding suspense, drama or rivalry to the equation? Inquiring minds want to know.
I know "that's the way it's always been done," however, is it vitally important to keep doing it "like it's always been done?" I understand if it's not broken don't fix it, but isn't pool broken? Isn't that the issue after all?
Do you really thing 98% of the people that watch the streaming video that is commonly called "TV" doesn't know how to run out playing pool? And that's not the complete point, the point is "why is it so important to try to predict what the player is doing?" They're only right about 65% of the time anyway.
Why not just let them do it and concentrate on adding suspense, drama or rivalry to the equation? Inquiring minds want to know.
I know "that's the way it's always been done," however, is it vitally important to keep doing it "like it's always been done?" I understand if it's not broken don't fix it, but isn't pool broken? Isn't that the issue after all?
Last edited:
I said earlier they can build up drama, suspense, and rivalry for instance.
I said earlier they can build up drama, suspense, and rivalry for instance. These are techniques that are done in snooker, and poker does a good job of it as well. Predicting shots are always going to be a part of the commentary, I'm just suggesting it doesn't have to be the major part.
I said earlier they can build up drama, suspense, and rivalry for instance. These are techniques that are done in snooker, and poker does a good job of it as well. Predicting shots are always going to be a part of the commentary, I'm just suggesting it doesn't have to be the major part.
Do you really thing 98% of the people that watch the streaming video that is commonly called "TV" doesn't know how to run out playing pool? And that's not the complete point, the point is "why is it so important to try to predict what the player is doing?" They're only right about 65% of the time anyway.
Let's not take it too out of context.
98% of the viewing public do not have a clue compared to, say, Billy Incardona as the color commentator. That is certainly a truth. Players think they know, but we (collective non-professional players) don't. We just don't like to admit it. There are players who study the game, and players who play the game. They don't have to do both. Most don't.
And when new viewers, new to the game or well into the game for forty years but never played competitively are added to the viewership that number actually goes up.
There are 40Million people counted as "pool players" in the sporting census based on the person playing at least a couple times a year, even it's just to rack the quarters on Friday night during Easter and Christmas. I'd say the 98% is an understatement.
Freddie
Do you really thing 98% of the people that watch the streaming video that is commonly called "TV" doesn't know how to run out playing pool? And that's not the complete point, the point is "why is it so important to try to predict what the player is doing?" They're only right about 65% of the time anyway.
Why not just let them do it and concentrate on adding suspense, drama or rivalry to the equation? Inquiring minds want to know.
I know "that's the way it's always been done," however, is it vitally important to keep doing it "like it's always been done?" I understand if it's not broken don't fix it, but isn't pool broken? Isn't that the issue after all?
Because in sports where you have time to analyze before the play happens, that is the basis of commentary. Such as golf - the announcers want to let you know that the player should hit the ball down the left side of the fairway, use an 8 iron into the green, the putt will break 3 inches left into the hole. In baseball, the same way as they want to predict if it will be a fastball or a curve ball, a bunt, hit and run, straight steal, etc. Then if the player/team mess up, they can comment on that as well.
In fast paced sports, you don't have time to make a prediction as an announcer. You simply call the action.
Last edited:
Pool is rather suspense-less to the average hack. I have no clue how you are going to impart that. Sure players sweat matches because they know the difficulty of the game. Hacks think "I can do that".
Mentioning rivalry and drama is a good point but if the playes arent acting upon this and voicing it in the match then the non-pool playing audience isnt going to care how Efren shit the 9 on Appleton at the open and really wants to get this win.
Most cases the non-shooting player just sits there and the shooting player shoots. Which is boring. Hell I fall asleep easy watching pro matches on DVD and I know the rivalries and the drama as I am a Pool Player.
Pro sports drama and rivalries have been established by either personal stuff for the specific player or have already been established for years (ie Baltimore and Pittsburgh) in that already popular sport.
If drama and rivalry is what you want the commentators to talk about, the audience is going to have to care either way and this goes back to getting the players known to the world... which they are not.
the character building must come first according to our research
If drama and rivalry is what you want the commentators to talk about, the audience is going to have to care either way and this goes back to getting the players known to the world... which they are not.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the character building must come first without a doubt. This was the case with all the success pool had in the past. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, just strategically make it roll.
If drama and rivalry is what you want the commentators to talk about, the audience is going to have to care either way and this goes back to getting the players known to the world... which they are not.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the character building must come first without a doubt. This was the case with all the success pool had in the past. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, just strategically make it roll.
.there's very little value in things that are predictable, why is pool any different?
The part I don't understand is why do people think pool shots are more enjoyable when we know what's going to happen? Maybe we should all "act" surprised.
It's like a movie, book, or even a date....aren't they more enjoyable if we don't know what's going to happen?
How can we ever have suspense, drama, or mystery if someone is always trying to forecast what's going to happen? At some level this doesn't make sense to do.....there's very little value in things that are predictable, why is pool any different?
The part I don't understand is why do people think pool shots are more enjoyable when we know what's going to happen? Maybe we should all "act" surprised.
It's like a movie, book, or even a date....aren't they more enjoyable if we don't know what's going to happen?
How can we ever have suspense, drama, or mystery if someone is always trying to forecast what's going to happen? At some level this doesn't make sense to do.....there's very little value in things that are predictable, why is pool any different?
I haven't read all the posts so this may already have been mentioned...
The Accu-Stats Race to 1 Game Show from the '09 DCC is probably the most entertaining match I've seen.
Everyone's having fun, you get to hear from the players, and it's fast-paced. The woman doing the interviews (I can't find her name right now) is very beautiful as well so you get it all!
The Accu-Stats Race to 1 Game Show from the '09 DCC is probably the most entertaining match I've seen.
Everyone's having fun, you get to hear from the players, and it's fast-paced. The woman doing the interviews (I can't find her name right now) is very beautiful as well so you get it all!
Everyone's having fun, you get to hear from the players
That's a good point. It's just safe to say there's better ways to do commentary and that's not being critical, it's just an observation. They are doing the same thing now as they were doing 13 years ago and it's obviously not drawing people in, the ratings are not even worth mentioning.
I've heard the streaming video matches are just drawing a few thousand people, that's not even close to the million that we were averaging with ESPN in the mid 90's.
That's a good point. It's just safe to say there's better ways to do commentary and that's not being critical, it's just an observation. They are doing the same thing now as they were doing 13 years ago and it's obviously not drawing people in, the ratings are not even worth mentioning.
I've heard the streaming video matches are just drawing a few thousand people, that's not even close to the million that we were averaging with ESPN in the mid 90's.
The part I don't understand is why do people think pool shots are more enjoyable when we know what's going to happen? Maybe we should all "act" surprised.
It's like a movie, book, or even a date....aren't they more enjoyable if we don't know what's going to happen?
How can we ever have suspense, drama, or mystery if someone is always trying to forecast what's going to happen? At some level this doesn't make sense to do.....there's very little value in things that are predictable, why is pool any different?
Right now, that's all they have to talk about. From what I've seen, commentators don't really prepare for it... they have a few things to say about the players (usually it's the same stuff rehashed over and over again), a little to say about the conditions and tournament, and that's about it...
So if they aren't talking about what the players are going to shoot what are they going say!?
I believe that in other sports, the press get "kits" that have biographies of the players, they also talk to the players before and/or after the game and have a lot more material to get into.
But, in baseball anyway, they definitely talk about what pitch we'll probably see next and whether or not they liked the decision. Hell, for a while, ESPN was showing you the batter's stats for every pitch...
.250 against right-handed pitcher with a runner on first
<batter takes a ball>
.125 against RH pitcher with runner on first and 1-0 count
<batter takes a strike>
.200 against RH picther/runner on first, 1-1 count
It was stupid... I hope they don't still do it (don't have cable so don't watch baseball on ESPN.)
Joe Rogan had some great ideas on how this could be done
It just seems like if you can do something with no preparation or training then it's probably not the best possible way.
There's an art form to building suspense and drama - people go to school to learn these things and do a lot of training and rehearsal.
Joe Rogan did some pool shows that I was involved with in the mid 90s and he had some great ideas on how this could be done. I still vividly remember them and I know he could pull them off with someone that was also trained in this type of acting.
It just seems like if you can do something with no preparation or training then it's probably not the best possible way.
There's an art form to building suspense and drama - people go to school to learn these things and do a lot of training and rehearsal.
Joe Rogan did some pool shows that I was involved with in the mid 90s and he had some great ideas on how this could be done. I still vividly remember them and I know he could pull them off with someone that was also trained in this type of acting.