you dont have to be good at something to get fame

[Garry Walker]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/6699469/Formula-One-legend-Murray-Walker-voted-best-commentator-of-all-time.html


:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

A guy with no understanding of F1, who spent his whole time making a fool of himself and they rate him so high. What comedy.

Can anyone explain to me the phenomenon of Murray? Since the first time I heard him, I considered him an idiot and rather would mute the TV than listen to his nonsense.

[UltimateDanGTR]

what henners said. summed up everything i was gonna say. thank you henners for saving me lots of typing effort! :D

[Alfa Fan]

I think the fact that a thread has been started simply to bash Walker, suggests that the thread starter is aware that many on here like Murray. A similar thread appeared about 12 months ago and ended quite badly. Do we really need to go through this again? :)

DON'T FEED THE TROLL! Seriously you can never win against trolls like Garry (or Ken over on the Indycar board). The best strategy is to deny them the attention they crave.

[Daniel]

Alfa Fan, you seem to forget that this is a discussion forum where people hold different views.....

[Rollo]

A guy with no understanding of F1,

Do you honestly think that someone who had been doing sports commentary generally from 1949, and then Formula One from 1971 to 2001 and who traveled the world inside the F1 circus for 20 years would have "no understanding of F1"?

This idea of yours is preposterous.

[ShiftingGears]

He is distinctive and lots of people connected with his enthusiasm for the sport, not because he is the most insightful commentator.

[woody2goody]

Despite the fact that he obviously knows a great deal about F1, and that he has commentated/covered it for nearly 60 years.

There are many lead commentators these days that have next to no knowledge about the sport at all (a lot less than Murray) - they rely on their colour guys to provide the insight.

Murray is a one of a kind, a very good commentator, and to me is deserving of the award.

[wedge]

DON'T FEED THE TROLL! Seriously you can never win against trolls like Garry (or Ken over on the Indycar board). The best strategy is to deny them the attention they crave.

For a troll he often makes interesting counter arguments from time to time

[Saint Devote]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/6699469/Formula-One-legend-Murray-Walker-voted-best-commentator-of-all-time.html


:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

A guy with no understanding of F1, who spent his whole time making a fool of himself and they rate him so high. What comedy.

Can anyone explain to me the phenomenon of Murray? Since the first time I heard him, I considered him an idiot and rather would mute the TV than listen to his nonsense.

I have never witnessed anyone disliking or saying anything bad about Murray Walker. I consider it motor racing heresy!

He and James Hunt were the most wonderful partnership and commentating team. I consider myself and all others privileged to have been around at that time that they were.

[garyshell]

DON'T FEED THE TROLL! Seriously you can never win against trolls like Garry (or Ken over on the Indycar board). The best strategy is to deny them the attention they crave.

Ken, a troll? No say it isn't so. ...big ol' grin...

Gary

[AndyL]

They got the number 1 right on that list at least... but how does Boycs get on there but not Johnners? He was the Murray Walker of cricket :D

[V12]

Murray and the idea of his constant gaffes have to be one of the biggest myths of all time. Probably because they are compiled and distilled down into video montages, books of quotes, whatever.

If you actually watch old tapes of Murray's commentary, 99% of the time he is insightful, had enormous background knowledge, and also kept the viewers up to speed with what was happening in the race off-camera (who was pitting, who was battling for 6th place, time gaps between positions, stuff like that). All while being enthusiastic and confident, with a distinctive voice that you would subconsciously associate with the sport in a split-second. Everything you'd want from a sports commentator basically.

His "gaffes" would generally be the result of a burst of pure enthusiasm or excitement, not senility or incompetence. And let's face it, those occasional mistakes just showed his human side and endeared him to us more. Who wants a word-perfect robot commentating? Yes he'll be remembered mostly for them but they tend to overshadow the fact he was a bloody good commentator.

[MrJan]

Murray was popular because people find formulaic boring. He was driven by a passion and desire rather than just spouting the facts and for that reason he gained a lot of support.

[Garry Walker]

I have never witnessed anyone disliking or saying anything bad about Murray Walker. I consider it motor racing heresy!I take your consideration very much into my heart :rotflmao:



He and James Hunt were the most wonderful partnership and commentating team. I consider myself and all others privileged to have been around at that time that they were.James hunt was a great commentator and even he could make Murray walker barely tolerable.



When you consider Murray gave commentary on races without the luxury of accurate live timing and multiple screens, I think he did quite well. I'd like to see todays commentators put in a similar environment. Brundle is excellent IMO, but even he makes the odd error. Murray does know an awful lot about F1 simply because its impossible for a human being to be surrounded by it for so long and not absorb an understanding. He was very good friends with the likes of Ayrton Senna and Nigel Mansell and got interviews due to his friendly demeanor where other networks failed to get a look in.

At the end of the day you can not make a judgement that someone knows nothing about F1 when you have observed their commentary on one single occassion. I would be inclined to say that that person knows nothing about commentary.. :)
Murrays f1 knowledge - He was an utter failure in Mastermind where he chose F1 as his special subject. Easy questions, idiotic answers.

As for my experience with Murray - it is unfortunately not limited to 1 race, it is probably closer to 200 races.

With regards to being so long in F1 and you saying it is impossible not absord an understanding, I will disagree.
I had some dealings with an accoutant who had been in the same area for almost 30 years, but her knowledge of it was such that even for a person such as I, who doesnt deal with such stuff on a day to day basis, it was embarrassing having to help her with stuff.



.

His "gaffes" would generally be the result of a burst of pure enthusiasm or excitement, not senility or incompetence. And let's face it, those occasional mistakes just showed his human side and endeared him to us more. Who wants a word-perfect robot commentating? Yes he'll be remembered mostly for them but they tend to overshadow the fact he was a bloody good commentator.

Funny, when Allen or Legard make a mistake, they are at once branded idiots, when Murray (mr.senile) makes 20 errors, he has passion and emotions.

[Garry Walker]

Do you honestly think that someone who had been doing sports commentary generally from 1949, and then Formula One from 1971 to 2001 and who traveled the world inside the F1 circus for 20 years would have "no understanding of F1"?

This idea of yours is preposterous.
Yes, he indeed understood very little about F1.
Sure, he might have known pretty much everyone and he might have seen oh so many races, but come race day, he struggled to actually understand what was happening in the race. That is undisputable in my view.
Now a different point is, was he entertaining for people? Obviously, it seems to many he was, which baffles me. In a commentator I primarily want not stupid catchphrases (Murrays favourite - Now he is pushing very very hard indeed to open a cushion or however it went, he said that every race) and yelling, but ability to make intelligent and accurate comments, so that for a listener it is interesting to listen to. That is something Murray was not able to do at all. Surely, if you are very entertaining that is a plus, but you have to have the knowledge.
He didnt.

[ArrowsFA1]

Sure, Murray was entertaining - I suspect that's what his employers wanted and liked about him - and that's a part of making sport enjoyable and interesting for viewers, casual or knowledgeable ones.

I don't for a moment doubt that Murray was, and remains, both an enthusiast and very knowledgeable about motor sport, but I don't think he was every likely to convey the full extent of his knowledge in his commentary. For one thing he wouldn't have had time left to describe what was going on, which was his main job after all, and also he invariably had an 'expert' (Hunt, Palmer, Brundle) alongside him to provide analysis and the drivers-eye view of what we were watching.

[JBAFCB]

I find it quite amazing that anyone should have a bad word to say about Murray Walker. The guy is an absolute legend and probably the greatest Motorsport commentator that's ever lived

Yes Murray used to make mistakes but that was made him so loveable. His character and enthusiasm for the sport made even the most tedious race entertaining.

The difference between Murray and the likes of Legard is that Murray had genuine passion and love for the sport. You can't really say that about Legard he's just a clueless buffoon who makes James Allen look like God. I've never heard any f1 or motorsport fan have anything but love for Murray Walker. What you've got to remember is he was 78 when he did his last commentary. 78! When my grandparents were 78 they couldn't remember my friggin name

The guy is a living legend end of

[christophulus]

Sure, Murray was entertaining - I suspect that's what his employers wanted and liked about him - and that's a part of making sport enjoyable and interesting for viewers, casual or knowledgeable ones.

I don't for a moment doubt that Murray was, and remains, both an enthusiast and very knowledgeable about motor sport, but I don't think he was every likely to convey the full extent of his knowledge in his commentary. For one thing he wouldn't have had time left to describe what was going on, which was his main job after all, and also he invariably had an 'expert' (Hunt, Palmer, Brundle) alongside him to provide analysis and the drivers-eye view of what we were watching.

Spot on. Murray was the commentator, not the technical expert or whatever. Nonetheless, the features he's done for the BBC F1 website this year have been excellent.

I suppose a lot of it is nostalgia, he has been F1's main commentator in the UK to date. Most people know Murray Walker whether they're F1 fans or not. And personally, I find him far less annoying to listen to than James Allen or Jonathan Legard.

[edv]

That list is bogus. 'Best Commentators of All Time' ??!? Should be UK's Best, but the article does not mention that.
I don't see Danny Gallivan or Pat Sumerall or Howard Cosell, etc., or for racing, Chris Economaki.

Most people have no idea who 95% of the commentators on that list are!

[truefan72]

Murray Walker may be an F1 Icon and probably knows a lot about F1, but he really was not a competent race day commentator. Perhaps if he stuck to writing reports, delivering interviews and behind the scenes pieces, and generally became a leading authority in the F1 press/media world then he would be held in higher esteem. But all his knowledge and inside work could not save him from being utterly terrible behind the mic on Sundays. It was painful to watch and listen. He deserves his awards and recognition for his longevity and commitment to the betterment & promotion of F1 for decades. But there is no doubt that he would be a leading candidate in the hall of shame for actual broadcast performance on race day.

[edv]

I would expect a Canadian newspaper to have a list of all time great Canadian commentators, and it wouldn't bother me... :)

I am sure it WOULD bother you, however, if the title of the Canadian version was 'Best Commentators of All Time', as this one does.

[truefan72]

Murray and the idea of his constant gaffes have to be one of the biggest myths of all time. Probably because they are compiled and distilled down into video montages, books of quotes, whatever.

If you actually watch old tapes of Murray's commentary, 99% of the time he is insightful, had enormous background knowledge, and also kept the viewers up to speed with what was happening in the race off-camera (who was pitting, who was battling for 6th place, time gaps between positions, stuff like that). All while being enthusiastic and confident, with a distinctive voice that you would subconsciously associate with the sport in a split-second. Everything you'd want from a sports commentator basically.

His "gaffes" would generally be the result of a burst of pure enthusiasm or excitement, not senility or incompetence. And let's face it, those occasional mistakes just showed his human side and endeared him to us more. Who wants a word-perfect robot commentating? Yes he'll be remembered mostly for them but they tend to overshadow the fact he was a bloody good commentator.

that is not true, there is a wonderful channel on a website the broadcasts F1 races 24/7 and MW's gaffes and terrible commentary are on full display for all to see and hear. It was never about the occasional gaffe here and there compiled over 30 years. It was much more about the unbearable nature of his poor broadcasting skills on display each and every Sunday that was so painful and which left many people with a distinct opinion of the man.

He is like your endearing crazy uncle. You like him because he is family, but you are clearly aware that he is nuts.

[truefan72]

Spot on. Murray was the commentator, not the technical expert or whatever. Nonetheless, the features he's done for the BBC F1 website this year have been excellent.

I suppose a lot of it is nostalgia, he has been F1's main commentator in the UK to date. Most people know Murray Walker whether they're F1 fans or not. And personally, I find him far less annoying to listen to than James Allen or Jonathan Legard.

you are right, but even in that capacity he was terrible. and in-fact it only makes matters worse in my eyes. As you folks say he, he was only charged with commenting on the race at hand while leaving the color commentary to the experts alongside. But he was so bad at that job I remember hundreds of times when his broadcast partners had to correct him on some of the most basic things. Sometimes I wondered if he was drunk or something because he would often get basic stuff wrong that the most casual fan would have not mistaken. Half the time, brundle would be embarrassingly correcting him on very basic race stuff....every race.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1131862/THE-LIST-10-1-favourite-sports-commentators-time.html
1st Richie Benaud
2nd Peter Alliss
3rd David Coleman

I've never even heard of the number one on this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richie_Benaud

I agree that he is, or rather was now he's retired, the best sports commentator of all time. But, then, he was also a former pro who played at the very top level.

However, that David Coleman is at number three does immediately invalidate the Daily Mail's list. The man was a first rate twonk.

[Rollo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richie_Benaud

I agree that he is, or rather was now he's retired, the best sports commentator of all time.

Retired?

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/richie-benaud-signs-new-three-year-deal-with-channel-nine/story-e6frfmyi-1225797766576
YOU know how Richie Benaud is retiring this summer? Well, he's not.
...his new contract will take him through to April 1, 2013.

Richie was on the Triple M this morning having a chat to Michael Slater and Chris Gayle.

[Sonic]

[I]Another[i/] Murray bashing thread. Really? Yawn!

[Sonic]

Another Murray bashing thread. Really? Yawn!

[jens]

Well, those emotions and passion are a very good trait of a commentator, no doubt... but it was also Murray's weakness, forcing him to make too many mistakes. I have watched a fair amount of old races with Walker commentating and too often he gets overexcited ("Is it <insert name>? Is it <insert name>? Oh my god, this would be an incredible turnaround!! This will blow the race wide open!!") without concentrating, what really happened, and co-commentator correcting him moments later as a result. Passion and emotions are very good, but it would be better if they were controlled and canalized in the correct way. In fact, while watching any sports, it's a bit annoying, when commentator gets something completely wrong, while every casual TV viewer can comprehend immediately, what really happened.

[ShiftingGears]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richie_Benaud

I agree that he is, or rather was now he's retired, the best sports commentator of all time. But, then, he was also a former pro who played at the very top level.


I agree, he is quite fantastic.

[ioan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/6699469/Formula-One-legend-Murray-Walker-voted-best-commentator-of-all-time.html


:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

A guy with no understanding of F1, who spent his whole time making a fool of himself and they rate him so high. What comedy.

Can anyone explain to me the phenomenon of Murray? Since the first time I heard him, I considered him an idiot and rather would mute the TV than listen to his nonsense.

As I often said more than 90% of the F1 'fans' know close to nothing about F1 so for them Murray sounded like a knowledgeable F1 commentator. ;)

[Valve Bounce]

Murray and the idea of his constant gaffes have to be one of the biggest myths of all time. Probably because they are compiled and distilled down into video montages, books of quotes, whatever.

If you actually watch old tapes of Murray's commentary, 99% of the time he is insightful, had enormous background knowledge, and also kept the viewers up to speed with what was happening in the race off-camera (who was pitting, who was battling for 6th place, time gaps between positions, stuff like that). All while being enthusiastic and confident, with a distinctive voice that you would subconsciously associate with the sport in a split-second. Everything you'd want from a sports commentator basically.

His "gaffes" would generally be the result of a burst of pure enthusiasm or excitement, not senility or incompetence. And let's face it, those occasional mistakes just showed his human side and endeared him to us more. Who wants a word-perfect robot commentating? Yes he'll be remembered mostly for them but they tend to overshadow the fact he was a bloody good commentator.

Murray knew his F1, no question. And I just loved his gaffes - they were just so entertaining that it made me laugh instead of fall asleep. There are websites dedicated to his gaffes, and I just love them. He made Bunsen immortal. :p : I do miss him, that's for sure.

[Valve Bounce]

Retired?

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/richie-benaud-signs-new-three-year-deal-with-channel-nine/story-e6frfmyi-1225797766576
YOU know how Richie Benaud is retiring this summer? Well, he's not.
...his new contract will take him through to April 1, 2013.

Richie was on the Triple M this morning having a chat to Michael Slater and Chris Gayle.

Tru dat!!

[truefan72]

Well, those emotions and passion are a very good trait of a commentator, no doubt... but it was also Murray's weakness, forcing him to make too many mistakes. I have watched a fair amount of old races with Walker commentating and too often he gets overexcited ("Is it <insert name>? Is it <insert name>? Oh my god, this would be an incredible turnaround!! This will blow the race wide open!!") without concentrating, what really happened, and co-commentator correcting him moments later as a result. Passion and emotions are very good, but it would be better if they were controlled and canalized in the correct way. In fact, while watching any sports, it's a bit annoying, when commentator gets something completely wrong, while every casual TV viewer can comprehend immediately, what really happened.

very well said :up:

[truefan72]

Murray knew his F1, no question. And I just loved his gaffes - they were just so entertaining that it made me laugh instead of fall asleep. There are websites dedicated to his gaffes, and I just love them. He made Bunsen immortal. :p : I do miss him, that's for sure.

yeah, but would you give him an award for outstanding broadcasting?

[555-04Q2]

I loved old Murray immensely. But I draw the line at calling him the best of all time :crazy:

[SGWilko]

Murray twinned with James was priceless. When James was sober, he was the perfect foil for Murray's unbounded enthusiasm.

I did also like Murray's commentary of the BTCC during the Hoy/Cleland era.

Very amusing but informative.

[BDunnell]

Murray and the idea of his constant gaffes have to be one of the biggest myths of all time. Probably because they are compiled and distilled down into video montages, books of quotes, whatever.

If you actually watch old tapes of Murray's commentary, 99% of the time he is insightful, had enormous background knowledge, and also kept the viewers up to speed with what was happening in the race off-camera (who was pitting, who was battling for 6th place, time gaps between positions, stuff like that). All while being enthusiastic and confident, with a distinctive voice that you would subconsciously associate with the sport in a split-second. Everything you'd want from a sports commentator basically.

His "gaffes" would generally be the result of a burst of pure enthusiasm or excitement, not senility or incompetence. And let's face it, those occasional mistakes just showed his human side and endeared him to us more. Who wants a word-perfect robot commentating? Yes he'll be remembered mostly for them but they tend to overshadow the fact he was a bloody good commentator.

An excellent post. Many in the commentary business would surely agree. But then the internet gives a lot of people whose views deserve no credence the ability to express them, doesn't it? Wonderful thing.

[BDunnell]

you are right, but even in that capacity he was terrible. and in-fact it only makes matters worse in my eyes. As you folks say he, he was only charged with commenting on the race at hand while leaving the color commentary to the experts alongside. But he was so bad at that job I remember hundreds of times when his broadcast partners had to correct him on some of the most basic things. Sometimes I wondered if he was drunk or something because he would often get basic stuff wrong that the most casual fan would have not mistaken. Half the time, brundle would be embarrassingly correcting him on very basic race stuff....every race.

You, as with many people who criticise sports commentators, clearly only heard what you wanted to hear.

[BDunnell]

I did also like Murray's commentary of the BTCC during the Hoy/Cleland era.

Very amusing but informative.

But also, it must be said, scripted and, with hindsight, lacking true spontaneity.