Jump to content
IronChef

I've had enough of John Smith on the mic

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, jackwebster said:

Right, but "over-officious" is redundant

Not necessarily.  An official by nature is required to interfere and officiate.  I have to blow the whistle occasionally.  I just don't want to overdo it.

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AHamilton said:

Not necessarily.  An official be nature is required to interfere and officiate.  I have to blow the whistle occasionally.  I just don't want to overdo it.

?

I just meant that "officious" implies "overly."

Edited by jackwebster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jackwebster said:

Right, but "over-officious" is redundant

Notice the definition: "interfering."

I am a rf.  I have to interfere in matches by blowing the whistle.  That is officiation, or being officious.

I dislike blowing my whistle too often.  I prefer to let the kids wrestle.  I don't "look for boogers." If a kid isn't at serious risk of injury, and the match isn't devolving into a street fight, I keep my whistle out of my mouth and let the kids wrestle.  I prefer to verbally communicate things like "easy there... keep it legal" as opposed to blowing the whistle every five seconds.

I definitely work with guys who aren't averse to blowing the whistle.  All.  The . Time.  I would classify them as "over officious."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith is awesome, but there may be a bit much tactics-focused commentary for general audiences.

Where you have multiple announcers, typically we'd expect to see about 75% of the talking by the play-by-play guy, and 25% by the color guy.  Brooks is the play-by-play guy, but he's only talking about 25% to Smith's 75%.  

As a wrestling fan, I actually prefer this.  I'm watching the matches real time and don't need anyone telling me what's going on.  But I do enjoy Smith telling me lots of stuff I don't know -- thoughts on tactics and match observations that weren't as obvious to me.

But if I were new to wrestling or only a casual fan, like the vast majority of Olympic viewers, I'd probably find it a bit annoying, since I wouldn't understand most of what he's saying.  I'd probably want someone to just explain in very basic terms what's happening in a more nuts-and-bolts kind of way.  In that respect I think the balance is off, as Smith is dominating the conversation and there isn't quite as much baseline explanation to casual viewers as would be appropriate for an Olympic broadcast.  Its a bit of a missed opportunity to educate the masses on more of the basics, and maybe make wrestling feel a bit more accessible and understandable to casual viewers.

But let me reiterate:  the Smith-heavy commentary is a boon to the rest of us who don't need to be spoon fed.  Heck, I'd love to rewatch all of my favorite matches of all time and have Smith's commentary dubbed in.  How cool would that be, to have one of the country's best wrestling minds breaking down matches?  Getting that real-time in these Olympic matches is great!

So no complaints on a personal level, but if I were a network executive I'd tweak the balance a bit.

Edited by BAC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IronChef said:

He occasionally provides some good insight from his vast experience about what the wrestlers are doing or tactical considerations. He has got to stop coaching the wrestlers as if he is in the corner, and he only seems to have about an 80% understanding of the rules. It is disappointing that Burroughs is only there for one session per day, as he is a good check on Smith's worst instincts and complaining about the officials. I think Smith could be good if he got some coaching and took it to heart, because has a ton of valuable knowledge. it would be great if he could present it in a better way. 

I actually would have agreed with this last year but he’s been great this year. Coaching the wrestlers from the booth is fantastic imo. Really makes it fun to listen too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

Notice the definition: "interfering."

I am a rf.  I have to interfere in matches by blowing the whistle.  That is officiation, or being officious.

I dislike blowing my whistle too often.  I prefer to let the kids wrestle.  I don't "look for boogers." If a kid isn't at serious risk of injury, and the match isn't devolving into a street fight, I keep my whistle out of my mouth and let the kids wrestle.  I prefer to verbally communicate things like "easy there... keep it legal" as opposed to blowing the whistle every five seconds.

I definitely work with guys who aren't averse to blowing the whistle.  All.  The . Time.  I would classify them as "over officious."

Dude you can’t argue with Webster over a definition… he literally wrote the dictionary! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I’m torn on this one. As I coach I love the insight, but as a fan it is a bit annoying. I don’t think I’ve ever seen another sports announcer primarily just coaching rather than calling the action. It’s almost a little degrading to the athletes. But, hey, a free coaching clinic from John Smith…I’m not gonna argue with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Eagle26 said:

Dude you can’t argue with Webster over a definition… he literally wrote the dictionary! 

 

10 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

True!

Although this definition came from the Oxford Dictionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

Notice the definition: "interfering."

I am a rf.  I have to interfere in matches by blowing the whistle.  That is officiation, or being officious.

I dislike blowing my whistle too often.  I prefer to let the kids wrestle.  I don't "look for boogers." If a kid isn't at serious risk of injury, and the match isn't devolving into a street fight, I keep my whistle out of my mouth and let the kids wrestle.  I prefer to verbally communicate things like "easy there... keep it legal" as opposed to blowing the whistle every five seconds.

I definitely work with guys who aren't averse to blowing the whistle.  All.  The . Time.  I would classify them as "over officious."

I'm super exhausted. You win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gasman1 said:

I think he's awesome but you have to pay attention to the subtleties.  He has some great lines.

best Smith line of last night's broadcast (re. officiating):

"hopefully we'll see some sneakers left on the mat after this years games"

 

"put your feet on the mat and bridge, son" 

That was another great one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There probably isn’t a huge production staff and they have to fill a lot of airtime. Smith also isn’t a commentator by profession. Given all that I think it was a great product.

And I, too, enjoyed comments like “put your feet on the mat and bridge, son" 

Edited by Katie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smith is fantastic. The only thing I'd change is that he stops breathing into the mic so much. I love that he coaches from the booth. To me, he's overflowing with insight and knowledge that I appreciate being able to hear in the moment. I can live with a few flubs about the rules and the few times I've disagreed with him on a call. 

He and Burroughs work great together. Yesterday in that one match where the Cuban guy was up 9-0 and ended up losing 21-11 was a great moment of commentating from both of them, IMO. Even before the guy came all the way back, they could see that the match had turned and the Cuban was in trouble. That match was an example to me of how good they are at commentating and the banter between them. 

Edited by Return of Aztec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lu1979 said:

When I have been listening to Smith and JB I have really appreciated their commentary because I have been watching most of the matches on the NBC live stream and the English guys they have commenting on that are horrible.  I usually just mute them.  I don't know why those streams have different commentators.

I think JB and Smith are great, individually and as a team. A lot of knowledge, very little filler. Smith may be a little "regular guy at the bar" in his demeanor but the knowledge is deep and it comes through, even if he sometimes messes up scoring criteria. The British announcers, though... 

They never know why anyone is challenging or whether it would/should be successful or not. In Gilman's bronze medal match, he'd get an ankle, his opponent would sprawl, Gilman would convert and the commentators would congratulate Gilman for scoring off the other guy's move. Every single call was like that.  

3 hours ago, LJB said:

they clearly know little to nothing about wrestling, but, they are at least "professional" commentators...

one of them was apparently a former champ of some kind? but it must have been very different rules because he had no idea how to apply the current ones. plus the commentary was all filler - facts from biographical profiles etc. - because they genuinely had no idea how to describe the action.

1 hour ago, AHamilton said:

Not necessarily.  An official by nature is required to interfere and officiate.  I have to blow the whistle occasionally.  I just don't want to overdo it.

"officious" is exclusively a pejorative word. it doesn't refer to competent officiating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Return of Aztec said:

Smith is fantastic. The only thing I'd change is that he stops breathing into the mic so much. I love that he coaches from the booth. To me, he's overflowing with insight and knowledge that I appreciate being able to hear in the moment. I can live with a few flubs about the rules and the few times I've disagreed with him on a call. 

He and Burroughs work great together. Yesterday in that one match where the Cuban guy was up 9-0 and ended up losing 21-11 was a great moment of commentating from both of them, IMO. Even before the guy came all the way back, they could see that the match had turned and the Cuban was in trouble. That match was an example to me of how good they are at commentating and the banter between them. 

CUB should have challenged not getting the last turn which was deemed out-of-bounds! I thought he had a good chance of winning the challenge. Losing a point up by 9 isn't a big deal, especially given that he was totally gassed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Uncle Johnny wearing a vest during the broadcast? If he was wearing the vest then that would probably explain why he keeps breathing so deep and trying to coach on the mic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Smith really benefits from the presence of those god-awful british commentators who have actually never seen the aport before, and have spent the entire week discussing wrestling the same way british colonialists referred to the peoples of africa, india and malaysia hundreds of years ago.  Sh*t was/is really really bad.

John smith is better than those guys by a country mile, but he’s not good.  JB is much much better at the discussion.  He prepped, he’s got the enthusiasm, and he sees and discusses the whole moment.  Smith gives you some insight into his wrestling mind, which is cool, but he forgets everything else.  

John Smith<Jordan Burroughs

English announcers<<<<<<<<<John Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Return of Aztec said:

He and Burroughs work great together. Yesterday in that one match where the Cuban guy was up 9-0 and ended up losing 21-11 was a great moment of commentating from both of them, IMO. Even before the guy came all the way back, they could see that the match had turned and the Cuban was in trouble. That match was an example to me of how good they are at commentating and the banter between them. 

For sure. Most of my complaints relate to times when JB isn't there. Knapp, Smith, and Burroughs together is a great combo and does a good job giving the insights inherent to having two high level competitors there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ugarte said:

I think JB and Smith are great, individually and as a team. A lot of knowledge, very little filler. Smith may be a little "regular guy at the bar" in his demeanor but the knowledge is deep and it comes through, even if he sometimes messes up scoring criteria. The British announcers, though... 

They never know why anyone is challenging or whether it would/should be successful or not. In Gilman's bronze medal match, he'd get an ankle, his opponent would sprawl, Gilman would convert and the commentators would congratulate Gilman for scoring off the other guy's move. Every single call was like that.  

one of them was apparently a former champ of some kind? but it must have been very different rules because he had no idea how to apply the current ones. plus the commentary was all filler - facts from biographical profiles etc. - because they genuinely had no idea how to describe the action.

"officious" is exclusively a pejorative word. it doesn't refer to competent officiating.

Cornell lawyers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith really benefits from the presence of those god-awful british commentators who have actually never seen the aport before, and have spent the entire week discussing wrestling the same way british colonialists referred to the peoples of africa, india and malaysia hundreds of years ago.  Sh*t was/is really really bad.
John smith is better than those guys by a country mile, but he’s not good.  JB is much much better at the discussion.  He prepped, he’s got the enthusiasm, and he sees and discusses the whole moment.  Smith gives you some insight into his wrestling mind, which is cool, but he forgets everything else.  
John Smith English announcers

I couldn’t listen to the British guys more than one minute without muting them. Embarrassing decision to put them on the call. Any Flo personality would have been better, and JS was on a different level than them for sure.

I think most of the critics of Coach Smith are more or less valid, but him not doing his homework is not. As a Greco guy, I was blown away by the amount of background he had done on almost every single competitor, and he was even better about their styles, tactics, strengths and weaknesses in M/W FS. He seems to have watched every available video on every competitor at the games, rather than studying the rulebook, but I think that’s a fair trade off.

Plus, he pleasantly was the opposite of the British guys in terms of colonial mindset. Had nothing but positive things to say about the non-traditional wrestling countries and refuge wrestlers, and seemed genuinely glad that they were embracing the sport he loves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...