Did anyone watch the same U.S. Open that I did?

Did anyone watch the same U.S. Open that I did?

Post by Harold Sim » Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:03:24


Hi, all

I'm really pleased at the enthusiasm and support to try and get decent
billiard sports shows for US viewers. I'm appalled that the criticism is
minimal and so mild on this newsgroup. I suspect that it was so much more
pleasant than the ESPN ***and that has influenced you folks.  Here I go and
I hope the flames don't get too close.

Pluses:

1. No commercials!
2. No shots skipped!
3. Attractive production (aside from the rack girls and referee) :-)
4. Personal interviews with the two finalists was a plus, altho Mike Sigel's
efforts were a joke. He even had the gall to wish Ralf would win! OTOH, I got
a feeling for Alex's personality and outlook that I , and most of us,
certainly were unaware of before. If they had cut these shorter, the
presentation ceremonies would've been nice.

Minuses:

1. Mike Sigel's ego - dump him.
2. Terrible camera work. I can't recall ever seeing a player's grip hand
position and only 2-3 views of the cuetip aim on the cueball (other than the
obvious draw shots, seen from afar).
3. No rules of contest mentioned beforehand or during-except for that
horrendous change to a time clock at about 10-10.
4. Altho the image quality of the surroundings was great, it seemed that the
balls had a fuzzy outline on the overhead view. I didn't like the color
changes of the balls, either. (Traditionalist?)
5. Was the play affected by the seemingly excessive lighting which was likely
different from that during all the elimination rounds? Alex was wearing a
visor to deal with it.
6. The time crunch that didn't let us see the awards and Alex's personable
conduct afterward.

It was enjoyable as an important event. I strongly agree with one poster's
thought to have the entire six days available. It's fun to see *everyone* in
the event. Some of those guys could be lighting up the screen in the years to
come and I'm sure some of the earlier matches were exciting.

Hal

 
 
 

Did anyone watch the same U.S. Open that I did?

Post by Aunty Da » Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:28:25

Frankly yes, it is the fact that the only other tournament coverage, beyond
$30 a pop Accu-stats tapes (And that isn't even live) we've had in the US
has been the dire ESPN productions, so our standards are naturally lower. I
was spoilt growing up in England by the incredibly high-quality Snooker
coverage, but remember most of that is paid for by the tax-payer's money as
they were BBC productions so not required to be profitable.

But the important thing is, if we don't support this effort there's little
chance it will be followed up by better productions in the future. This does
not mean we have to love it flaws and all. I agree I would have loved to see
the whole 6 days, was not impressed wit Mr. Sigel's commentary, the audio or
video quality or the camera-work. (The rules were read out by the referee
right at the beginning, but the poor sound mixing made it hard to hear.)

However at this stage it is an unrealistic hope that they would have gotten
everything perfect right off the bat. The reason I am exited was there is
now a chance to demonstrate that there is a viable commercial market for
televised pool tournaments. Once this can be established then the producers
of content will start competing for the audience with better quality, more
content and increased purses.

--
Aunty Dan
(Remove "x" from "xhotmail.com to reply directly)
------------------------------------------
"For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoisted with his own petard."
- W. Shakespeare
------------------------------------------

Quote:
> Hi, all

> I'm really pleased at the enthusiasm and support to try and get decent
> billiard sports shows for US viewers. I'm appalled that the criticism is
> minimal and so mild on this newsgroup. I suspect that it was so much more
> pleasant than the ESPN ***and that has influenced you folks.  Here I go
and
> I hope the flames don't get too close.

> Pluses:

> 1. No commercials!
> 2. No shots skipped!
> 3. Attractive production (aside from the rack girls and referee) :-)
> 4. Personal interviews with the two finalists was a plus, altho Mike
Sigel's
> efforts were a joke. He even had the gall to wish Ralf would win! OTOH, I
got
> a feeling for Alex's personality and outlook that I , and most of us,
> certainly were unaware of before. If they had cut these shorter, the
> presentation ceremonies would've been nice.

> Minuses:

> 1. Mike Sigel's ego - dump him.
> 2. Terrible camera work. I can't recall ever seeing a player's grip hand
> position and only 2-3 views of the cuetip aim on the cueball (other than
the
> obvious draw shots, seen from afar).
> 3. No rules of contest mentioned beforehand or during-except for that
> horrendous change to a time clock at about 10-10.
> 4. Altho the image quality of the surroundings was great, it seemed that
the
> balls had a fuzzy outline on the overhead view. I didn't like the color
> changes of the balls, either. (Traditionalist?)
> 5. Was the play affected by the seemingly excessive lighting which was
likely
> different from that during all the elimination rounds? Alex was wearing a
> visor to deal with it.
> 6. The time crunch that didn't let us see the awards and Alex's personable
> conduct afterward.

> It was enjoyable as an important event. I strongly agree with one poster's
> thought to have the entire six days available. It's fun to see *everyone*
in
> the event. Some of those guys could be lighting up the screen in the years
to
> come and I'm sure some of the earlier matches were exciting.

> Hal


 
 
 

Did anyone watch the same U.S. Open that I did?

Post by Ninebal3 » Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:38:23

   No flames from me. I agree with most of what you said. I think you were a
little *** Mike tho. He did better than most can do as far as the interview
and announcing. Was he great? No way!

   He wished Ralf luck, probably because he had a side bet with someone.
Hustlin' Hank

 
 
 

Did anyone watch the same U.S. Open that I did?

Post by Jack Stei » Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:32:16

Quote:

> Hi, all

> I'm really pleased at the enthusiasm and support to try and get decent
> billiard sports shows for US viewers. I'm appalled that the criticism is
> minimal and so mild on this newsgroup. I suspect that it was so much more
> pleasant than the ESPN ***and that has influenced you folks.  Here I go and
> I hope the flames don't get too close.

I agree with every word you said.  I just hope enough people watched to
make it a recurring happening and perhaps then ESPN will start putting
some real pool on.  I would rather have commercials than pay for every
good match on the tube.  Not commercials as ESPN does on pool, but as
done in all other big sports where NOTHING is missed.
--
Jack
http://SportToday.org/
Quote:
> Pluses:

> 1. No commercials!
> 2. No shots skipped!
> 3. Attractive production (aside from the rack girls and referee) :-)
> 4. Personal interviews with the two finalists was a plus, altho Mike Sigel's
> efforts were a joke. He even had the gall to wish Ralf would win! OTOH, I got
> a feeling for Alex's personality and outlook that I , and most of us,
> certainly were unaware of before. If they had cut these shorter, the
> presentation ceremonies would've been nice.

> Minuses:

> 1. Mike Sigel's ego - dump him.
> 2. Terrible camera work. I can't recall ever seeing a player's grip hand
> position and only 2-3 views of the cuetip aim on the cueball (other than the
> obvious draw shots, seen from afar).
> 3. No rules of contest mentioned beforehand or during-except for that
> horrendous change to a time clock at about 10-10.
> 4. Altho the image quality of the surroundings was great, it seemed that the
> balls had a fuzzy outline on the overhead view. I didn't like the color
> changes of the balls, either. (Traditionalist?)
> 5. Was the play affected by the seemingly excessive lighting which was likely
> different from that during all the elimination rounds? Alex was wearing a
> visor to deal with it.
> 6. The time crunch that didn't let us see the awards and Alex's personable
> conduct afterward.

> It was enjoyable as an important event. I strongly agree with one poster's
> thought to have the entire six days available. It's fun to see *everyone* in
> the event. Some of those guys could be lighting up the screen in the years to
> come and I'm sure some of the earlier matches were exciting.

> Hal

 
 
 

Did anyone watch the same U.S. Open that I did?

Post by Jack Stei » Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:39:12

Quote:


>    No flames from me. I agree with most of what you said. I think you were a
> little *** Mike tho. He did better than most can do as far as the > interview and announcing. Was he great? No way!

At least 3 or 4 times I was yelling at the TV telling them to shut up
and watch the match.  I don't have a clue who was talking, but 3 of them
were too many, and a little less personal crap, and a little less bias
would have been nice.  I wanted Ralph to win myself, but was almost
ready to root for Alex after watching him being ignored (personal
stories seemed to come when Alex was shooting) There was one announcer
that really bothered me, I guess it was Seigal, as I had no clue who was
saying what. Still, WAY better than ESPN junk.

Quote:
>    He wished Ralf luck, probably because he had a side bet with someone.
> Hustlin' Hank

I'd LOVE to know how many watched this on PayPerView.  Was it good for
those trying to make a buck?  

--
Jack
http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

Did anyone watch the same U.S. Open that I did?

Post by J. Roge » Thu, 03 Oct 2002 02:27:30



Quote:
>  I just hope enough people watched to
>make it a recurring happening and perhaps then ESPN will start putting
>some real pool on.  I would rather have commercials than pay for every
>good match on the tube.  Not commercials as ESPN does on pool, but as
>done in all other big sports where NOTHING is missed.

Has anybody heard what kind of numbers the telecast generated?
Was it sucessful so that it might happen again?

J.