.jpg)
.jpg)
Capturing "The Moment"
By Bryan GreenIf there's one thing I really like about Doug Logan, CEO of USATF, it's that he writes a pretty consistent blog and isn't afraid to address the major issues. His latest post tackles the issue of capturing "the moment" at a live sporting event. He defines a "moment" as "that point in the contest that you experience a catch in your breath, a pure emotional reaction, a feeling you are blessed to be there to bear witness, or, in the case of a television viewer, a regret that you weren't there." That's the same thing I felt was lacking when I wrote that there were no "bona fide scream-out-loud-while-you-watch-your-TV moments" in track and field.
Of course, capturing "the moment" at a football game is much easier than doing so at a track meet. In most sports, you essentially follow the ball. I'd bet that 90% of "moments" in sports occur within a close proximity to the ball. Track is like a three-ring circus, though. If you're watching the track, it's hard to follow the jumps and throws, and vice versa. That's part of what makes it great. But capturing that for a live audience, let alone a television audience, is no easy task.
But that's not to say it can't be done. Scott Davis, longtime announcer at the Mt. SAC invitational and UCLA home meets has an uncanny knack for making every event at a track meet feel like the most important event of the year. And while it might just be their accents, I feel like British commentators elevate the quality of a TV broadcast the way Americans don't.
Even in Britain, however, the broadcasts have their issues. Logan himself called out a short list of deficiencies in track and field television coverage:
"We are locked into a television "look and feel" that is archaic and flat, leaving many of our broadcasts looking like a piece of evidentiary documentation rather than a live drama. There is way too much superfluous talking during our broadcasts. We have incidences where we miss the "moment" completely, or it is masticated by an editor in the production of an event that is tape-delayed. The emotional reaction of the live crowd is rarely conveyed to the viewer."As a distance running fan, this reminds me of the many times I've been brought into a distance race for the last lap (or worse, long after the race has been decided), given a cursory acknowledgment of the key runners in the field, and then been expected to appreciate the performance of the winner. Then again, I don't have much to complain about compared to the throws and jumps fans. They really get screwed on TV.
The best thing about Logan's article, actually, are the many comments he received. I thought I'd sift through them and rank order them based on my own personal prioritization. Not all will directly lead to capturing "the moment", but they'll improve the broadcasts as a whole. On that note, Logan mentions that "how much [money] we can and should commit is under consideration." Hopefully this article (and any comments our great readers provide) will assist to that end.
The Top TV Broadcast Improvements as Suggested by USATF Commenters
1. Split-screens (by Alan)
My #1 wish. I've been arguing for this forever. The technology has been around for ages (hello 1960s), and with today's HD 3D 1080p uber-TVs, the small screen would probably be bigger and clearer than the TV I grew up with. Let's just get this done already.
2. Real-time leaderboard results and splits/paces (by Brad):
I've written often about my desire for real-time results and splits. The ability to translate those into paces is a great idea, too.
The real-time leaderboard could be a huge value-add, too. Right now I'm picturing a little sidebar that pops out on the right of the screen that provides updates on every event. It can be 400m splits in the case of a running event, or an update on rankings based on each round of a field event. It could be a ticker that never leaves, or it could come out every 10 minutes or so with updates. It might not capture any "moments", but it certainly would help keep fans in the loop on what's going on.
3. Show all finishers, not just the winner and then the winner kissing the track (by Tom):I love this one. The best battles are often for 2nd and 3rd, let alone 5th. If there's some secret group of fans who want to see winners kissing tracks, well, that sounds like a great use for a split-screen!
4. Reduce inane and superfluous commentary by broadcasters (by Tom & Ken):
We can call this "The Carol Lewis Solution". It's hard to capture a "moment" when the announcers are too busy yapping on about inane topics or giving the kind of fluffy generic commentary that even casual fans take for granted ("Running an 800 meters really takes it all out of you." Yeah, no shit.). If you can set the right stage, the event can sell itself. The major quality missing in most of our broadcasts is the ability of commentators to "understate" the event. To set it up and then just let it play out.
I'm reminded of the Vancouver Olympics, an event that is designed with the sole purpose of creating and broadcasting "moments". During the women's figure skating long program, Kim Yu Na entered the rink with everything to lose. She went out and performed a flawless routine that was simply stunning. The best part, though? The announcers just let us watch, only giving a few, "triple triple combination coming up" comments. It wasn't until her final spin, the cherry on top of her giant "moment" sundae, that any actual commentary was added. And it was this: "That may have been the best performance I have ever seen in an Olympic Games."
Thank goodness they didn't ruin it by talking over it.
5. Field events need to show more than top 2-3 athletes and their top marks (by Mark):
I totally agree with this, but in reality, the problem is in the events themselves, not the TV coverage. It can take all day for a pole vault competition to end. This screams out for a split-screen solution, so that jumps/throws are constantly being shown, even if not on the main picture. I would add that instead of just showing the jumps, showing one jump overlayed on another would give some interesting perspective on the difference in form, the relative height each athlete gets, etc. Again, the technology is out there.
6. Don't interview athletes just after they've finished competing (by Randy & Tom): Doesn't this just annoy you? It bothers me to no end. Even on their best days, there are only three or four athletes with any personality anyway. Now you want them to answer questions while their brains are recovering from oxygen debt? It's no wonder nobody's said anything interesting in one of these interviews since ... um ... never?
7. Drop metric measurements. It's like having a German speaking announcer (by Don):
This obviously isn't directed at the track. Nobody wants to be told we're watching the 109.36 yard dash. But I totally agree that the field events need to consistently and frequently refer to the distances in terms of feet and inches for all jumps and throws. I'm a track fan and I still need it.
I listed a few other ideas in my Ten TV Tips for Track article: using side angles for jumps, using augmented reality technology to show throw trajectories and field distances, showing more comprehensive results and using graphics better, and doing away with some of the build-up for sprints (I'd argue it's okay to do that build-up, but the TV should be showing field events with the sprinter introductions happening in the split screen), and the really big one: pronouncing people's names correctly. There are at least 10-20 improvements that can be made to the TV presentation, and what can't be shown there could always be shown at a later date on the Internet. We're long past the time for excuses.
***************
There were many other great ideas offered in the comments. Creating teams with salary caps, creating a North American series of meets, allowing athletes to have logos on their uniforms a la NASCAR, and focusing more money on general promotion than on the broadcasts themselves. There were also comments that echoed Logan's with regard to the need for better technology, better lighting, more cameras, etc, at the venues themselves. These are all issues for a separate column, however, and may or may not have a viable place in USATF's future.
I'll end by saying I'm glad that Logan and the USATF are taking this seriously. We do need to do a much better job of capturing track and field's "moments". I believe we'll get there. As with any problem, the first step is admitting it's there. Now that USATF's done that, I hope the next step is making some changes.
race or an event. It's another to do it in a way that makes people rub their heads and say, "No way." When you've got the best in the world competing together, that's the kind of final you hope to see, and there have been a few performances that practically defy description.
stunning defeat left the Polish Anna Rogowska atop the podium. Sure Isinbayeva looked vulnerable coming in, but she wasn't supposed to actually be vulnerable! The same applies to Meseret Defar, who ran a seemingly perfect race only to find that her kick disappeared with 30 meters to go, which opened the door to Melkamu who lazily opened up Linet Masai's rather than slamming it shut. Linet Masai's win might have been expected by some, but certainly not in the way it happened.
have all performed exceptionally. Bernard Lagat, Lopez Lomong and Leonel Manzano all qualified easily for the final, and they all showed finishing speed that should put them in contention at the end. Even Ulrey advanced to the semis, which took a huge run. Some of the top runners have already been eliminated--Keitany, Boukensa, Zerguelaine--so the chances are there. Let's hope they all continue to run very well in the final, and that very well equals good enough for a medal.
.jpg)
.jpg)
