AtomicDawg
Patriot of the Week
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 13,199
- Reaction score
- 37,466
My point wasn't that regional broadcasters are biased. Obviously they are catering to a different audience and can get away with actively rooting for a particular team.
I'm saying that, bias aside, a lot of them simply aren't good broadcasters. The Mets, for example, have a superb broadcast team of Gary Cohen, Keith Hernandez, and Ron Darling -- they are eloquent speakers, have great voices, and call a really good game. Hawk Harralson sounds like a decrepit old man; even if I was a White Sox fan I wouldn't like him, because he's more of a novelty than an actual complement to the game. The Mets guys are observational and insightful. Hawk sounds like a drunken uncle muttering whatever random thoughts comes into his head, it's like he's just winging it.
Being able to speak with a powerful, clear voice, having reasonable rhythm/cadence to the way they deliver their lines, etc are all underrated qualities. Simms may not be the best -- yes, he sometimes says dumb things -- but I think he's far from the worst. Joe Buck is another guy that gets **** on constantly, but I'll be damned if that guy doesn't have a phenomenal "Big Game" sound/voice.
Good enunciation is not the first thing I look for when I'm watching a sporting event, just being honest with myself. I watch the sport to be entertained anyway, so I want my announcer to do the same thing.
But they also have to be able to make some sort of sense. I agree, a Hawk Harrelson wouldn't fit a national broadcast because he's nowhere near impartial nor understandable. But at the very least, there should be a standard. Like Vin Scully, Pat Summerall and others. Nantz is fine but both him and Simms together makes the whole thing go downhill. I'm talking about this specific game and my (and others, apparently) experience watching/listening to it.