Quantcast

Pietermaritzburg - 2012 WC DH#1

bdamschen

bdamschen

Turbo Monkey
Nov 28, 2005
3,377
156
Spreckels, CA
Confused! so then what time should I start watching??? I'm guessing coverage is not going to get rolling until at least an hour or so before the last 30 dudes start, yes?

Kinda stoked I don't have to wake up at 4:15 am... but also kinda bummed I wont see the whole thing
 
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,859
24,453
media blackout
Fool said:
Check the latest Littermag slideshow for news about Rebull coverage this weekend. No more 3 hours of raw Rob Warner. Going to be a bit more packaged. For better or worse, I guess.
Click to expand...
definitely for worse. and here i thought red bull taking over was going to be a good thing.

sethimus said:
even worse
Click to expand...
so much worse.

i'm honestly SO disappointed that a company as financially flush as red bull is going to be offering inferior coverage to what freecaster gave us.
 
jnooth

jnooth

Monkey
Sep 19, 2008
384
1
Vermont Country
the excuse of having to find something to talk about for 80 riders pretty lame. I wonder if baseball games will now start in the 7th inning so the commentators don't have to fill 9 innings.
 
G

General Lee

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2003
2,860
0
The 802
General Lee said:
Someone will find a way to be disappointed
Click to expand...
Told ya so . . . .



I actually think the change in format is a great idea.

I usually turned on the live stream and made sure it worked then went back to bed for an hour and a half until the fast guys came down. To be honest, even though you have to be sh*t hot fast to even quali for a WC these days, the guys outside the top 50 look pretty slow on TV.

Personal preference aside, a shorter, cleaner, and more focused presentation is going to be a lot more attractive if the goal is to attract outside attention. Sure a 3 hr broadcast is great for us dedicated fans, but its too protracted for anyone else.

Instantly saying Red Bull dropped the ball misses the point a bit. The new format might actually be better for exposure, which is the real purpose of having a broadcast in the first place.
 
Last edited:
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,859
24,453
media blackout
General Lee said:
I'll be the first guy to say good.

I usually turned on the live stream and made sure it worked then went back to bed for an hour and a half until the fast guys came down. To be honest, even though you have to be sh*t hot fast to even quali for a WC these days, the guys outside the top 50 look pretty slow on TV.

Personal preference aside, a shorter, cleaner, and more focused presentation is going to be a lot more attractive if the goal is to attract outside attention. Sure a 3 hr broadcast is great for us dedicated fans, but its too protracted for anyone else.

Instantly saying Red Bull dropped the ball misses the point a bit. The new format might actually be better for exposure, which is the real purpose of having a broadcast in the first place.
Click to expand...
but why not broadcast the full race in its entirety? if you're dedicated enough to get up at 5am on a sunday morning to watch the race live...


then save the top 30 for the replay.
 
G

General Lee

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2003
2,860
0
The 802
jnooth said:
agreed. they are not trying to get exposer at 5 am. show the whole thing live then make a good short to the point replay.
Click to expand...
So they should produce 2 shows for you. For free?

Think about it. Tour de France is edited down, FIS ski racing is edited down, most all of the Olympics is edited (too much in some cases). Do you need, and are you entitled to 3+ hrs of DH racing just because you want it and the UCI used to give you some half assed, low quality camera feed for the duration? The only real saving grace was Warner, because if we're honest not all the riding was that entertaining. At least not all 3 hours of it. Even a full baseball game isn't that long.

I'll take a properly produced, well covered HD broadcast for 60-90 minutes over some of the garbage coverage the UCI produced. Half the MSA track has never been shown in 4 years, and for Worlds in '10 they didn't even bother covering the best part under the lift. Sure, some events were better than others but not consistently year to year. How about when they put the cameras on the Ft. William track in places that provided the longest shots, it was dull. Given RB media house's reputation i just don't see the same happening with them running the production down to the ground.

Quality over quantity in my opinion
 
Last edited:
jnooth

jnooth

Monkey
Sep 19, 2008
384
1
Vermont Country
I see your point but if they have to have those cameras in place and recording to capture the footage for the highlights that they plan to show of the first 60 men, and then have to have the live stream set up anyways. just put it on for all 80 and only have the commentators come on for the last 30. also I would not be one that complained if I had to pay 10-20 dollars per round if it were required. If its a money issue I am more than willing to pay

ps average baseball games are 2.5-3 hours.
 
Last edited:
Inclag

Inclag

Turbo Monkey
Sep 9, 2001
2,752
442
MA
General Lee said:
Told ya so . . . .



I actually think the change in format is a great idea.

I usually turned on the live stream and made sure it worked then went back to bed for an hour and a half until the fast guys came down. To be honest, even though you have to be sh*t hot fast to even quali for a WC these days, the guys outside the top 50 look pretty slow on TV.

Personal preference aside, a shorter, cleaner, and more focused presentation is going to be a lot more attractive if the goal is to attract outside attention. Sure a 3 hr broadcast is great for us dedicated fans, but its too protracted for anyone else.

Instantly saying Red Bull dropped the ball misses the point a bit. The new format might actually be better for exposure, which is the real purpose of having a broadcast in the first place.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be a douche but that's a fairly large percentage of riders when you compare top 50 vs. top 30 in a 80 qualifier event with regard to speed. As pointed out given the how fast these guys are going days there are plenty of riders that qualify outside of the top 30 that finish in the top 20 come finals. There are also juniors a well (the future top dogs of the sport) that may not have the best position come finals that fans won't be able to watch. I for one am disappointed at this move.

As silly as the baseball announcer analogy seems, it doesn't seem that far off. Maybe having informative and professional announcers that know how to play to the common mouthbreather would be more beneficial than having a couple yahoo's that refer to half the field as 'legends'? I mean I do like Warner, but his shtick is funny and amusing for those of us more deeply rooted in this sport. For the outsider the shock factor may be amusing at first, but I would contend that a more informative and insightful broadcasts is more beneficial in the long run and aid exposure and legitimacy. I guess in general, I disagree with Redbull's move. If the riding community or UCI decide that the top 30 qualifiers are the only riders that are worth showing live on TV, then maybe only 30 riders should qualify? Wouldn't it be a hoot if someone outside of the top 30 won a race!...It's happened before.

Also, this is an internet broadcast. No, advertising or white people problem 'Office/We're in our mid-thirties and now have children' comedy shows to schedule around. A live unedited streamed feed seems perfectly acceptable. Then again I'll claim ignorance to not knowing if that extra hour or so of live streaming breaks the bank, but it would seem to me that if Freecaster could bootstrap it then it should be do-able.
 
Last edited:
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,859
24,453
media blackout
Lee - TdF is edited down because you're talking roughly 6 hours of racing a day over 3 weeks, over a massive geographical area - dozens of motorcycles with feeds, several helicopters, etc. and everything has to be broken down, moved, and set up again every day of the race.

with the dh events the cameras and feed equipment are already in place - and we're talking about maybe an extra 2 hours of coverage at most. they've got to record everything in the first place in order to pull any highlights or make an edit of the top 30, so why not just broadcast it live anyways? It's not like they're paying for network broadcast time, its just an internet broadcast (which obviously isn't free, but not as pricey as actual airtime).

and let's not forget that this is coming from a company that ponied up sponsorship dollars for a guy to go skydiving from low earth orbit.


i'll give you the quality over quantity point, but production quality is gonna have to be absolute top notch to justify broadcasting less than a third of the race.
 
E

epic

Turbo Monkey
Sep 15, 2008
1,041
21
This sucks, you could get a winner or at the very least a podium finisher from outside of the top-30. I'm pretty sure we did last year, and it was exciting as hell. Now it'll be like watching ski racing where if I see a guy I haven't heard of start his run I know he's going to have a huge wreck or win the race.
 
T

tabletop84

Monkey
Nov 12, 2011
891
15
Apart from the crappy connection speed and lack of cameras the concept of freecaster was pretty good. Especially with the full lengt replays available for years. Would have been better if Red Bull had teamed up with them.
 
yopaulie

yopaulie

Monkey
Jun 4, 2009
165
7
NH
I will take whatever we can get but I am bummed that we won’t get to see some of the local boys. Last year I was amped to see East coast local Gavin Vaughan rippin it at Winham. I will be rooting for someone outside of the top 30 to win, and then maybe RB will show more?
 
slyfink

slyfink

Turbo Monkey
Sep 16, 2008
9,319
5,074
Ottawa, Canada
jonKranked said:
Lee - TdF is edited down because you're talking roughly 6 hours of racing a day over 3 weeks, over a massive geographical area - dozens of motorcycles with feeds, several helicopters, etc. and everything has to be broken down, moved, and set up again every day of the race.

with the dh events the cameras and feed equipment are already in place - and we're talking about maybe an extra 2 hours of coverage at most. they've got to record everything in the first place in order to pull any highlights or make an edit of the top 30, so why not just broadcast it live anyways? It's not like they're paying for network broadcast time, its just an internet broadcast (which obviously isn't free, but not as pricey as actual airtime).
Click to expand...
Some TV stations actually broadcast the whole race live, while it happens. So in reality, the TDF has both: an edited down program in the evening for the semi-fans, and the full, live, as-it-happens, blow-by-blow for the real fans.

Nevertheless, the sponsorship dollars for the TDF are on another planet compared to DH mtb.

But still, Lee's example is invalid, even if I agree with the point he is trying to make.
 
'size

'size

Turbo Monkey
May 30, 2007
2,000
338
AZ
top five so far:

minnaar
gwin
smith
atherton
brosnan

RT @DirtMagazine: 6th to 12th Hannah, Gracia, Neethling, Peat, Hart, Beer, Hill
 
Last edited:
mattmatt86

mattmatt86

Turbo Monkey
Feb 9, 2005
5,347
10
Bleedmore, Murderland
I think some of us are jaded, comparing Downhill Mountain Biking to Major League Baseball or even the Tour de France is apples to oranges. DH is an extremely niche discipline within a niche sport, having any coverage is a luxury. The salary of 1 middle of the road MLB player could probably pay for the entire race budget for half of the WC teams. Expecting similar coverage for DH is just silly. I'm greatful RB is broadcasting anything at all.
 
heikkihall

heikkihall

Monkey
Dec 14, 2001
882
0
Durango, CO
.008 holy crap do you realize how close that is? I am a little bit suprised that they are even timing to the thousandth of a second. That is pretty much a tie in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom