David Fitzgerald

[Posts: 847Joined: 14 Jun 2009, 23:52Location: Croydon]

As has been discussed on this site before David Fitzgerald is an excellent addition to the list of racecourse commentators, but recently I am getting annoyed that during his commentaries he will often mention where a horse has run previously - horse A ran unplaced here, horse B won on soft ground there.

It was quite noticeable at Chester tonight and I think it spoils the commentary, I don't want to hear how a horse has run previously, I just want to know how the horses are running now.
Am I wrong about this?

[Posts: 971Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 16:52]

You were only praising him recently, Phil, for doing a fine, understated job at Brighton.
I know what you mean, though. I never thought I would say this, especially as I started the original David Fitzgerald thread and have often lavished praise on him, but he might be over-doing it a bit.
I love to hear extra details added, especially bits of form, mentions of jockeys and trainers and numbers of wins horses or jockeys have had but I strongly suspect I am in a minority of one (as usual) on this.
Most TV viewers and virtually 100 per cent of betting shop viewers watching races will not be the slightest bit interested in mentions of bits of form, number of winners ridden etc. Because I am not motivated by betting, more by the art of the commentator in providing an interesting commentary, my own preferences in this area are, I admit, largely irrelevant to everyone else.
David has been overdoing it a bit, even I admit, although it pains me to say it because I admire him for making the effort, doing his best to provide an interesting commentary and not just doing the minimum by mentioning just the horses' names.
He often says things like "for the John Gosden team" (so many "teams" get mentioned by the end of a longer jumps race that it even irritates me) and he often does the Stewart Machin bit of just mentioning jockeys by their surnames but he still gets high marks from me for his enthusiasm and sheer effort.
I suppose it's a case of striking the balance and not overdoing it.

Stick with our mutual friend, John Hunt. At least you know where you stand with him and won't get any extra, extraneous bits from him. Horses' names, the occasional mention of a jockey and rarely anything more.
Only joking. He does a very good job, though, at what he does and the way he does it.

[Posts: 1699Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 10:32]

I concur wholeheartedly Phil, all this extraneous information has no place in a horse racing commentary particularly on the flat imo.

More is not better but this is obviously not the view of some broadcasters or maybe commentators panels as well as CrustyPatch.

Times, changing numbers, and moving prices seem to be appearing on my screen during races now but it's hard to see what they achieve apart from being a distraction to the race being watched.

Good to see Alan Howes like Hunty keep this rubbish to a minimum during a race and he has been justly rewarded with better meetings lately at the likes of Chester & Goodwood.

[Posts: 971Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 16:52]

Good to see Alan Howes like Hunty keep this rubbish to a minimum during a race

You've compared Alan Howes with John Hunt before, Yeats, and I'm still very surprised because they could not be more different in style.
Alan makes great efforts and commendably often adds in lots of extra bits of information, including previous wins, numbers of winners ridden, courses where a horse has won last time etc, and deserves a lot of credit for that.
He's actually far more like David Fitzgerald than Hunt and is actually the second most detailed commentator after David.
You would only have to listen to the race I previously mentioned at a rain-lashed Musselburgh recently when he valiantly added the name of every single jockey and a piece of information about most of the horses' form to see there is absolutely no comparison with Hunt.
Hunt would not have mentioned any jockeys, except perhaps the winning rider if he was a very long way clear at the line.
Martin Harris is the most minimalist commentator after Hunt, although he does occasionally mention jockeys during races.
I once watched a two-horse jumps race at Leicester where, throughout, Harris gave just the horses' names, with John Hunt-style long pauses and absolutely nothing else, including not even the jockey's names, throughout the entire race.
It was absolutely infuriating. Mind you, David Fitzgerald would have given us everything, including the inside leg measurements of the jockeys.
I can't seem to watch a sportinglife.com race replay without hearing Harris at the moment. He has been popping up all over the place, including Haydock, Pontefract, Market Rasen and Catterick.
I agree with you that Alan Howes deserves better fixtures but, honestly, Hunty he ain't. Alan puts a lot of extra effort in and packs in a lot of information, especially in jumps and longer races but also even in all-weather races, I've noticed.

[Posts: 1699Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 10:32]

To tell you the truth CrustyPatch a lot of the time I'm concentrating on the race so much I don't notice a lot of this extraneous information at the time unless it's Chapman but if I do I don't like it.

I was perhaps hoping Alan didn't put too much in his but take your word for it that he does. Now you've also confirmed Hunty does not partake in this particular annoying feature of commentating I think I will be voting for him in commentator of the year.


Something I find far more useful from a commentator than the extraneous stuff during a race is useful bits of info prior to a race, such as what looks well or has gone down well or badly etc.

Mark Johnson, Simon Holt, John Hunt, Richard Hoiles and one or two others score particularly well on this while one or two others provide very little or in the case of Ian Bartlett absolutely nothing, he nearly has a coronary everytime a presenter hands over to him with more than 2 still to load.

[Posts: 971Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 16:52]

Now you've also confirmed Hunty does not partake in this particular annoying feature of commentating I think I will be voting for him in commentator of the year.

You're as safe as houses on that front, Yeats, and good luck to you. John Hunt is your man for the minimalist, name-of-horses-only approach you are looking for. That style is what every betting shop punter and most viewers want, as I readily concede.
Most punters just want to know who is in the lead, who is in second and third, who is tailed off and who is making a late swoop.
I would be voting for David Fitzgerald for the exact opposite reason to you but obviously we are both looking for different things and that's absolutely fine. Different styles suit different viewers and we all have our favourites and those we are not so keen on.
No doubt most people couldn't give a damn about who's commentating as long as they are told who is in the lead.
For that reason, racecourse commentating is one of the most under-rated and under-appreciated jobs in racing.
So many people take the commentator for granted, not realising the sheer brilliance it takes to memorise sometimes large numbers of names, colours and other details and to be able to interpret a race as it happens in sometimes poor visibility and describe it accurately in a fluent, stutter-free and invariably word-perfect way (leaving aside a notable exception or two who are further back in the field and out deeper on the track in terms of fluency and accuracy!).
John Hunt is excellent for accuracy and is widely respected and admired.
It's certainly true in my opinion, however, that the people who make the most effort, in terms of trying to do more than just the minimum, are those who, as with so many other aspects of life, get the most criticism for their pains. Those who do the least are, as often as not, the ones who are lauded and praised and whose faces (or voices) fit.

Something I find far more useful from a commentator than the extraneous stuff during a race is useful bits of info prior to a race, such as what looks well or has gone down well or badly etc.
Mark Johnson, Simon Holt, John Hunt, Richard Hoiles and one or two others score particularly well on this while one or two others provide very little or in the case of Ian Bartlett absolutely nothing, he nearly has a coronary everytime a presenter hands over to him with more than 2 still to load.

Mark Johnson is definitely one of the best for providing information on the racecourse. He consciously modelled himself on Raleigh Gilbert for this aspect and, when he was first starting out as a young commentator, spent a lot of time accompanying Raleigh at meetings and saw how Raleigh often provided these invaluable bits of information as the horses went down to post and while they were circling at the start.
Jeremy Branfoot, a now retired racecourse commentator, was also excellent for this in his later years and really pulled up his socks over giving pre-race information back in the 1990s after a bit of a tightening-up in the requirements for the service expected from racecourse commentators.
Ian Bartlett certainly provides absolutely nothing during pre-race handovers on At The Races. But Paul Ostermeyer has pointed out that he believes it is not the commentator's job to provide banter with ATR presenters.
If they are put on the spot, however unwelcome this might be to them, it would be nice if they had the grace to contribute something of use, however. Many do but the glum Bartlett certainly isn't one of them.

[Posts: 4482Joined: 03 Sep 2007, 22:56Location: Milton Keynes]

Many do but the glum Bartlett certainly isn't one of them.

Even if I had to list a thousand words to describe Barty glum is certainly one I would not use!!!

[Posts: 971Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 16:52]

Many do but the glum Bartlett certainly isn't one of them.

Even if I had to list a thousand words to describe Barty glum is certainly one I would not use!!!

Perhaps I should have said tetchy or taciturn!
I was only meaning his handovers on At The Races and his suitably lugubrious performances when doing the form analysis for BBC TV. I know you find him a chirpy and cheery chappie away from the cameras and the microphone. He must forget to take the happy pills when he is doing the infamous monosyllabic ATR handovers!
By the way, I notice David Fitzgerald is now describing himself on his Twitter header as an occasional snooker commentator for Eurosport. I'd love to know if he does his rapid-fire racecourse-style everything-I-know-about-this-player commentaries for the snooker.
Imagine him doing the commentary instead of Whispering Ted Lowe back in the 1980s at the Crucible: "It's Steve Davis, bidding for his seventh world championship, winner of a record six UK championship titles, he's won more professional titles than any other player, he comes up to the final black full of running a distance clear, for the Barry Hearn team..."

[Posts: 1Joined: 15 Jul 2012, 19:40]

Martin Harris is the most minimalist commentator after Hunt, although he does occasionally mention jockeys during races.
I once watched a two-horse jumps race at Leicester where, throughout, Harris gave just the horses' names, with John Hunt-style long pauses and absolutely nothing else, including not even the jockey's names, throughout the entire race.
It was absolutely infuriating.

I suggest CP watches the match between Ours and Persian Gates again. Whilst it is interesting to read what creepy stalker-like characters write about us on forums it is even more infuriating for us when utter and inaccurate tripe is posted.

[Posts: 971Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 16:52]

I suggest CP watches the match between Ours and Persian Gates again.

It's very kind of you, Martin, but one listen is more than enough, I can assure you.
But it would be pretty pointless as this was not even the race in question. There are, however, plenty of other examples of minimalism to choose from.
I'm sure you would agree that you have been regularly praised, and rightly so, on this forum by me and others for your very competent performances, which have never been questioned for accuracy and reliability.
* Having revisited this matter after the lacklustre and minimal commentaries by Martin Harris at the recent two-day Cartmel meeting, I am amazed at the apparent suggestion and belief by him that he does more than just the bare minimum.
There was certainly nothing in those Cartmel commentaries to suggest that he was doing anything more than the minimum, just the horses' names and occasional mentions of jockeys' names. No attempt to inject anything more than that by way of extra bits of information, apart from saying that they were racing on the "priory side", and certainly no attempt at injecting any sort of atmosphere or interest.
Now if this is a commentator's style, then fair enough. There are plenty of people who want just this and Harris provides it. But to take offence in a thin-skinned and humourless way is a bit rich.
If someone chooses to work in broadcasting or in a public role, then they have got to expect very occasionally that a viewer might sometimes voice an opinion on their efforts, be they lamentable or praiseworthy.
It's unrealistic to expect otherwise. Don't work in a public role, broadcasting to thousands of people, if you are not prepared to accept that you might occasionally come under scrutiny.

[Posts: 971Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 16:52]

Very good to see in the Racing Post's birthday greetings today that former ITV and racecourse commentator John Penney was 86 today.
I don't think I could say he is still going strongly because I know he has been suffering from a lot of ill-health.
He was one of the mainstays of the old ITV 7 coverage before losing out to Graham Goode in 1981 when GG became the number one commentator.
Several of the old guard, including Ken Grainger and Cloudesley Marsham, have died in the last year or so.
Other stalwarts who have had birthdays recently include John Hanmer, who is amazingly now 72, and John Hickman, who is 67.
It's certainly frightening, the march of time....

[Posts: 847Joined: 14 Jun 2009, 23:52Location: Croydon]

Other stalwarts who have had birthdays recently include John Hanmer, who is amazingly now 72, and John Hickman, who is 67.
It's certainly frightening, the march of time....

That's scary the march of time...

[Posts: 971Joined: 20 Sep 2011, 16:52]

David Fitzgerald certainly seems to be impressing them at Channel 4.
He has been heard on Channel 4 yet again today, with the course commentary featuring David being taken from Market Rasen.
I suspect he will end up being used even more on the list of regular callers preferred by Channel 4. He certainly deserves his success.
Racing UK still can't be bothered to include him and fellow newcomer Gordon Brown on their section featuring presenters for the channel.