Improving TV fencing commentary

[qatet]

Well, we've got four more years until the next Olympics (presumably the next time fencing would be on TV). I know that one of my favorite parts of watching the Olympics is actually learning a bit about the sports, and seeing why peopel are scored as they are, and trying to guess where they'll end up based on my own observations. With that in mind, what quick explanations do you think could serve fencing well for next time?

My favorite is explaining right of way quickly. "You're not alowed to commit suicide to hit the other person. If they're attacking you, you must defend yourself before you attack."

How painful would it be to say that?

What other easy explanations, or better explanations for ROW, would you like to hear next time?

[Gav]

Get some Italians in - i found them vastly entertaining.

[dunastor]

Somewhere else I read someone writing about "priority" as a means to explain RoW.. I think that makes sence for non-fencers.

It's a little bit like car driving. You have to stop and give way to people who come from the right, but if you can go fast enough to skip past them first, that's ok too....

No seriously, calling it priority, and (for sabre) explaining that almost any hesitation loses your priority, I think would be much more clear than the esoteric RoW stuff...

[U.M.Amherst.Sabre95]

Get at least one commentator who knows the sport.

Don't dumb it down for the lay viewer.

Simple as that IMHO.

-Evan

[CarlKnoch]

One of the commentators DID know the sport, but she was apparently not allowed to use words like Parry instead of Block. Could have been a producer thing.

[sloper]

Don't do it live.
Especially with the time delay from Athens, I think Suzie and her color commentators could have done a much better job if they added it after the fact. That would give her a chance to analyze the entire bout and decide ahead of time what she wanted to point out for each touch and what words she wanted to use.
You could choose the best places to point out different facets like parry riposte, distance parries, no crossing the feet = flunge, strategy within several points, athleticism required to lunge full out and then retreat, etc.
Most importantly you could tell the audience what to look for before the action happened.
One downside I see is that it will be obvious that the commentators know what's going to happen ahead of time. That may make for less excitement. Then again maybe the commentators could make it seem like they were seeing for the first time, too. They would still be prepared to talk about each touch but they could save it till the touch was happening letting people see it themselves on slo mo.

[achilleus]

Put some excitement into the voices.

I was jumping up and down on some touches only to hear Suzie describe the action in a monotone voice.

Personally I love the Cuban announcers from the world cup years ago...

They took cues from soccer.

Toccaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaddo.

[Victor]

In the interim are there any lighting and/or filming techniques that could be tried to enhance the bladework? A zoom of some sort, perhaps, or a camera tracking closer to the fencers? It's very difficult for a newbie spectator (or even my wife, for that matter) to appreciate what's going on when she can't see the bleedin' weapons. Better use of instant replay at slow speed with greater camera detail *might* help. Maybe. I dunno.

[Craig]

Anyone who watched the live Italian feed has an idea of what should be done. There is no need to avoid doing it live - but the people need practice at doing live commentary.

The emotion and banter of the Italian feed was good. Even though I didn't understand it, it made me feel the excitement of what was going on.

The "pros" have stat sheets and ranking sheets/results in front of them (or piped to them by stat/factoid jockeys) to add to the flavor of the commentary.

Craig

[Artisan]

I thought the commentary was a bit tiresome:

"He was going 100% forward, so the ref awarded him the touch" ---EGAD.

"...a block, then an immediate return attack"

"... he makes a block, or parry..."

" ...you see, he was REALLY going 100% forward... "


Bill Clement did a better job with badminten, about which I'm sure he knows next to nothing - (beside how much is there to know, besides..."can go 200 mph and 16 feathers from the left side of the goose"

It wouldn't take the public long to figure out some basic terms like parry, repost, and counterattack. Its english anymore. And why not explain ROW in some simple terms as Qatet suggests. "Going 100% forward" just sounds ineffective - as well as plain wrong.

These affectations gave her commentary the stunted feel of a politician who's been coached to gesture with that stupid closed knuckle pointing thing rather than point with their fingers or pound their fist. yuck.

[achilleus]

Ya know, I love Suzie, but we've all criticized her commentary.

I wonder, and next time I see her, I'll ask her, how much was NBC directing her commentary.

I can easily imagine NBC saying avoid these words since our audience are idiots:

Parry
Riposte
Beat
etc...

Or even saying avoid descriptions of RoW.

It would be interesting to know...

[BOliver]

I've worked a bit with Olympic tv broadcasting, and they keep a pretty tight hold on commentary.

A direct translation of the Italian commentators should be a guide, INMHO.

If the audience can figure out what a double Sukarhara is, they can figure out what a parry - riposte is.

Like in gymnastics, skating, track, basketball, for that matter, the audience doesn't need to know what a term means to understand it's significance.

Say "Keeth started first, Poz reacted. Attack, counter attack." My aged grandma can figure it out from there... Say "the attack is parried, and the riposte lands." Say, "Keeth pulls his arm back, and Poz seizes the opportunity and attacks."

That's all that's required.

Don't say "The Chinese fencer makes a brilliant attack, but the Hungarian referee reverses the action, and calls it for the Italians...."