Eaglerulez wrote:
Alvin Tostig wrote:
Power13 wrote:
But if it weren't for you, your wife likely wouldn't be watching the Tour. Focusing on a secondary demographic is rarely a good strategy.You're correct, my wife (probably) wouldn't watch if it weren't for me, but she does enjoy Phil and Paul. Their banter and level of expertise are just right for her. It does bring one more pair of eyeballs to their program. (And who else is going to buy a Gotham Steel fry pan!)
I'm in complete agreement, their commentary makes the sport very accessible and in the U.S. that's pretty important. I can have the tour on and within 5 minutes of watching my family and friends who don't know anything of the sport have a pretty good idea of what is going on.
In all honesty, I've never noticed any glaring issues with the factuality of their commentary. Aside from calling people the wrong names, which I think is going to happen from time to time in a field of 180 riders, especially with the majority of the camera shots coming from helicopter, what specific moments have ruined the commentary for you guys?
I try to not watch them at all, but the last time I did it was 3-minute highlights of the stage of the Tour de France that Jarlinson Pantano won. Inside the last 500 meters Liggett calls the race "That would have been a great result for Pantano" as if the other guy had just won. Seconds later Pantano comes around the other guy and wins the stage. Statement, then the opposite happens. That is typical.
No single instance ruins it for me, but it's a sign he sucks. We wouldn't put up with that in other sports (saying "the ball is in the hole" when it's not clear it will be) so why should it be OK in cycling. He's terrible.
Note, I'm not grousing on him *just* for being wrong so much, but for being unable to control himself and wait till he understands what he is seeing. It's Dunning-Kruger style cluelessness.
Oh, plus being a Lance Armstrong apologist/supporter/toadie for too long.
http://www.jt10000.com/