uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[Richard C]

My last reply on this topic in "this" thread as this topic is off topic for this thread. It's probably a good topic for the "How to fix F1" thread. And all of this has been discussed there.

Originally Posted by john ruston

Suppose it’s the interpretation of people’s thought when they discuss sports.

True. Some have a view that F1 should be an example of a "pure sport" (whatever that is). Depending where you look, you get various definitions, but most include things like..

* Competition
* Requires skill
* Follows a set of rules

Sometimes it may be said to be done for enjoyment and even entertainment.

And when I say "pure sport" I think the intent is to remove any notion of "commercialization" from the equation. And exactly what is a "level playing field" is a tough topic. Is steroids allowed? Can you spend as much money as you want? Etc. But there is a fantasy that a pure sport is just all about determining who is the winner and who is the looser and generally glossing over all of the practical details.

I think we can all agree. F1 is (and has never been) "pure" if that is the definition. And GP racing and now F1 has always had "entertainment" at it's core. More so now than ever before (not that I agree that is ideal, but that is the situation)

Originally Posted by john ruston

Is it sport where you race and compete against each other and may best win or is it a mix of entertainment and sport where everything needs to be equal and things are made to one level.

You are trying to make it a binary discussion, but you include more than two dimensions. Including equating "entertaining" to be "by definition" involving some type of forced "equality". It's clearly more complex than that. See comments earlier about exactly what is a "level playing field". Isn't that really up to the rules to define? Isn't the rules supposed to define "what is fair?"

Originally Posted by john ruston

Does sport need to be entertainment?

See my comments above. "Sport" as a generic concept... the answer is "no" as being entertaining is optional. For F1 specifically... the answer is clearly "yes". If F1 is not entertaining it would shrivel up and die. Or would reduce itself to something that might be more "pure" but also likely to be far removed from other things that are part of the historic definition of F1 (such as the best machines, best drivers, etc.) I doubt even the most diehard purists here watch F1 just to see "who is the best" in a non-emotional and detached way (All robots raise their hands!) If we were emotionally detached, I don't think anyone might say things like "that was a boring race". Because there is always a winner and a looser and that settles the "who is best" need.

Originally Posted by john ruston

F1 seems to have survived pretty well over the past seventy years so why change something that’s not broke?

Well. I would argue that most here think it's quite broke and has been subject to tinkering to change exactly what it "is" and how it works for it's entire existence. The items that hasn't changed is pretty simple (that would be an interesting thread/discussion in itself!) Nearly everything has probably has been changed over time. Do you really think it hasn't changed in 70 years?

Originally Posted by john ruston

Change is not always good and whilst I am on a roll can’t understand how NFL is considered a sport rather than a gladiatorial entertainment ,much same as WWF.

Assume you mean WWE. Anyhow, I guess the easy answer is that NFL is a competition, does require skill and does play by a set of rules. Maybe WWE does as well? But on a sliding scale of one end being "pure" (see above) and the other being "fiction" or "theatrics" I would place WWE right up against the theatrics side, but F1 and NFL would be much closer to the "pure" side of that ranking than WWE.

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

* Competition
* Requires skill
* Follows a set of rules

As far as I can tell Formula One still is an engineering competition which follows a set of technical regulations, the same as it has always been (including the pre-F1 European Grand Prix championship too).

The difference perhaps is now that teams have hundreds of engineers with powerful simulation tools to "brute force" their way to an optimised solution so there is less trial and error, and it is no longer possible for a talented John Barnard or similar to design an entire race winning car, albeit a USAC Indycar rather than a Formula One, from his home office by himself. Albeit the Grand Prix championships were rather a matter of brute force spending by the rich German super teams of the 1930's anyhow, so the modern era is perhaps not that different after all!

Unfortunately politics does become involved in how the regulations are worded and policed, which is a shame, but it is how it is and has almost always been thus -- perhaps since the very beginnings of Grand Prix motor racing as the regulations constantly ebbed and changed (at one point the choice of maximum, rather than minimum, weight regulations of unlimited swept capacity would have favoured the wealthy teams who could build large, wildly powerful machines for instance?). Whether it is fans and teams complaining the 1.5L cars are too slow and unspectacular, or fans and teams complaining the 2014 aero rule cars are too slow and unspectacular -- the same complaint, receiving the same political regulatory result of the FIA deciding to make the cars faster: be it with bigger 3L engines or bigger tyres and bigger wings respectively.

Conversely at other times, the FIA have done things like mandate a flat floor with a 100mm ride height to make the cars slower or grooves in the tyres to make the cars slower. Not super-logical, but it is what it is. The FIA is an illogical, political beast -- but surely, on average, this is something we like about Formula One? That the politics and engineering competition is at the forefront?

The political stunts, like Ferrari unironically building a V8 turbo Indycar when unhappy that 3.5L regulations were to be limited to 8 cylinders, and eventually getting their way with the FIA relenting and allowing 12 cylinders, are surely what we like to see!?

Obviously you then need a talented Nuvolari, Lauda, Verstappen etc to actually drive the car, but that has always been a relatively small part of it. The competition on track is obviously one of driver+team, driver+car. The driver is just the one who represents and finalises the efforts of the engineers (in some cases with the drivers involved in engineering the cars themselves, e.g., ex-Cooper aces Brabham and McLaren), with Grand Prix racing being an engineering competition.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Bit annoying that Sky are making such a big deal about Hamilton’s helmet. You’d think he created the LGBTQ+ rainbow flag.

Let me be clear I fully support his raising awareness but come on Sky, he’s not the first to have a rainbow on his helmet, Vettel in Hungary to name just one instance.

[billy bleach]

SPEAK UP CROFT I CANNOT HEAR YOU!

[billy bleach]

Croft. “Bottas the only retirement” - apart from Latifi who’s retirement caused the virtual yellow. Honestly , one job…

[chillibowl]

Dude, maybe tv isnt your thing?

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

Croft. “Bottas the only retirement” - apart from Latifi who’s retirement caused the virtual yellow. Honestly , one job…

He gets paid a lot of money to make very simple, weekly mistakes.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Skam85

He gets paid a lot of money to make very simple, weekly mistakes.

But unlike a former voice of F1 we don't love him for it.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Skam85

He gets paid a lot of money to make very simple, weekly mistakes.

And it’s not the first time UK TV has inflicted this on the world before either. We used to have James Allen and the weekly mistake high bar was set by Murray consistently for decades.

[Skam85]

Murray had character though.
Crofty is just loud and a bit dim.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Dude, maybe tv isnt your thing?

What isn’t my thing is incompetence

[S griffin]

Watching the C4 highlights last night, Christian Horner was of course moaning about the penalty, which wasn’t helped by DC stroking his ego, by saying that maybe they should put in exceptional circumstances for a yellow flag that shouldn’t be there. No David, if a yellow flag is out, correctly or incorrectly, it’s not up to the driver to decide if he should back off or not

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by billy bleach

What isn’t my thing is incompetence

fair fair!

[The Fat Clerk]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Murray had character though.
Crofty is just loud and a bit dim.

True.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Skam85

Murray had character though.
Crofty is just loud and a bit dim.

It was the Murrayisms that made it; the sheer passion.

[S griffin]

Murray was bound to make mistakes with his enthusiasm and the thing is they were always entertaining. And his Murrayisms were always memorable. And now excuse me while I interrupt myself. As the great man himself said ‘I don’t make mistakes, I make prophecies that immediately turn out to be wrong!’

[Adam43]

To be clear, my point was more that picking on Crofty for mistakes isn’t really getting at the problem. As demonstrated by peoples love for Murray.

Shame Murray ruined the end of the 1996 season by gushing over Damon. Did he not realise that other countries use his commentary?
(Again not being serious)

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Adam43

To be clear, my point was more that picking on Crofty for mistakes isn’t really getting at the problem. As demonstrated by peoples love for Murray.

Shame Murray ruined the end of the 1996 season by gushing over Damon. Did he not realise that other countries use his commentary?
(Again not being serious)

I'm happy to nitpick about the squeaky shrieker and his mistakes because so much of his "performance" feels contrived to me - whereas Muddly Talker was always absolutely natural and "real" - making any mistakes excusable in my book.

Don't know how to "fix" the shrieker in all honesty as he seems to be focussed on building his own "brand" and going hard at the catch phrases, shrieking and general carry-on. None of them are perfect though and all of them are commentating live so there will be stutters and mistakes I guess.

Oh and Murray's commentary when Damon won the title at Suzuka wasn't so much jingoistic to my mind as personal - there was a known fondness between Damon, his family and Murray and to this day in my view it remains one of THE most special examples of sports commentary I've ever experienced.

[Adam43]

I totally agree on the point about Murray and Damon. I suspect that would not be how it was viewed by many.

[S griffin]

Oh yes Damon and Murray had a great rapport. Who can forget that hilarious Pizza Hut advert?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Oh and Murray's commentary when Damon won the title at Suzuka wasn't so much jingoistic to my mind as personal - there was a known fondness between Damon, his family and Murray and to this day in my view it remains one of THE most special examples of sports commentary I've ever experienced.

Originally Posted by Adam43

I totally agree on the point about Murray and Damon. I suspect that would not be how it was viewed by many.

Originally Posted by S griffin

Oh yes Damon and Murray had a great rapport. Who can forget that hilarious Pizza Hut advert?

Murray will always be the exception to the rules when being considered a commentator, mainly because he was a true fan and admirer of all forms of motor sport, whether it be on two wheels, three, four or more. He was almost fanatical about it, but he was also a very humble man who, during his career made countless friends in the world of our sport.

One of those close friendships was with Graham Hill, and Murray had spent many hours in the Hill household so had known Damon from a very early age. He therefore followed his racing exploits rather more than he would have other drivers.

Therefore, being the kind and gentle man that he was (I was more than honoured to have been introduced to him many decades ago by a former WDC) it came as no surprise to me when he almost broke down when Damon achieved his title because he had a great affection for him, having watched him grow up at a close distance.


And as has been mentioned, he was able to take the mickey out of himself because his passion for the sport was absolutely infectious and he never attempted to put himself on a pedestal.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I totally agree on the point about Murray and Damon. I suspect that would not be how it was viewed by many.

Do you think so Adam? I know I'm a Brit and we were watching a Brit commentating on a Brit he'd known since he was knee-high winning the WDC, but would non-Brits find that offensive or overly jingoistic?

[Adam43]

No, perhaps not, because it was Murray. He gets a pass, whereas others wouldn’t.

If I have a point then it is that mistakes or that the coverage is too British isn’t where there problem lies. It is that Croft isn’t a brilliant commentator. Although not James Allen bad. And it is hard to describe why.

Personally I think he’s OK. Not great, not bad. What can he do to be better, I don’t know, but if he cut out all mistakes and failed to mention Hamilton once he’d still be at the same level. Possibly slightly worse!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Personally I think he’s OK. Not great, not bad.

It's because he's from Stevenage. F1 and Stevenage seems to trigger many people here for some reason. It's the reverse of 'location checks out'

[billy bleach]

BBC News website story about Sir Frank Williams passing.

“ In 1994, Williams, along with technical director Patrick Head and chief designer Adrian Newey, was charged with manslaughter in Italy following the death of driver Ayrton Senna in a crash at Imola but he was acquitted several years later.”

Is that really necessary ? What a nasty Snyde bunch the UK National broadcaster is